This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-04-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Citing People v. Valdez,[21] the CA explained that the attendance of treachery did not depend on the position of the victim at the time of the attack, for the essence of treachery was in the element of surprise the assailants purposely adopted to ensure that the victim would not be able to defend himself. Considering that the accused had purposely positioned themselves at night outside the door to the kitchen from where they could see Haide, who was then busy preparing dinner, through the holes of the kitchen wall, the CA concluded that Haide was thus left unaware of the impending assault against him. | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attendant in the commission of the crime, the medium penalty is the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.[56] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, appellant surreptitiously entered the house of the deceased at 1:00 o'clock in the morning. Awakened by the barking of the dog, the deceased and his wife went out of their bedroom to investigate. It was then, while the deceased was unarmed and standing side by side with his wife at the door facing the kitchen, that appellant shot him. The settled rule is that treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself against such attack. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without the slightest provocation from the victim who is unarmed, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[20] Appellant shot the deceased while the latter was defenseless and totally unaware of the impending attack to his person. Thus, under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime committed is murder. | |||||
|
2000-11-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants insist that they had no motive to shoot the victims and/or the complaining witnesses. However, even the absence of a known motive, the time-honored rule is that motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit.[20] Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused therein are definitely shown,[21] particularly when we consider how nowadays, it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offense for no reason at all.[22] | |||||