This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-09-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For alevosia to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: (a) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (b) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted. Treachery exists when any of the crimes against persons is committed with the employment of means, methods or forms that tend directly and specially to insure its execution, such that the offender faces no risk that may arise from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the slightest provocation.[28] | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the attending circumstances, only treachery was held present by both the trial and the appellate courts. For treachery to qualify the crime to murder, the prosecution must prove that (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted.[16] | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he was the perpetrator of the crime. He claims he was not conclusively identified and the alleged fatal weapon was not positively tested. True, prosecution witnesses did not positively identify appellant as the one who fired the gun at the victim. Nevertheless, direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix where the trial court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt.[17] It is settled that conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[18] Circumstantial evidence could be of similar weight and probative value as direct evidence. From direct evidence of a minor fact or facts, by a chain of circumstances the mind is led intuitively, or by a conscious process of reasoning, towards a conviction that from said fact or facts some other facts may be validly inferred.[19] No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, what is required is that there be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed and that the accused committed the crime.[20] | |||||
|
2000-01-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| On the concept of a complex crime, Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period."[17] The instant case does not fall under any of the two (2) mentioned instances wherein a complex crime is committed. The evidence on record shows that the killing of Julius Golocan and the wounding of his wife Flordeliza and their children John Paul and Noemi resulted not from a single act but from several and distinct acts of shooting. For one thing, the evidence indicates that not only one gunman was involved, and the act of each gunman was distinct from that of the others. Moreover, there were two (2) empty shells recovered at the crime scene which confirms the fact that several shots were fired. Furthermore, considering the relative positions of the gunmen who surrounded the victims, it was absolutely impossible for the four (4) victims to have been hit by a single bullet. Each act of pulling the the trigger of his firearm by each gunman and aiming it at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to the complex crime of murder with multiple frustrated murder.[18] | |||||