This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-10-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Consequently, by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of Deeds of Antipolo City cancelled TCT No. 259001 on March 28, 2005[4] and issued a new TCT No. 29251[5] in the name of Alexander David T. Linco. | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.[9] In the case at bar, the Solicitor General noted that about an hour before the stabbing, the victim and appellant had an altercation which led the former to box the latter in his face. Appellant's anger must have placed the victim on guard against possible retaliation from appellant. Appellant retaliated by stabbing the victim when he chanced upon the latter sitting alone by the roadside. In our view, treachery cannot be appreciated in this case where appellant could have stabbed the victim by way of a rash and impetuous impulse rather than from a deliberate act of the will,[10] even though the victim was stabbed from behind. Moreover, the victim was already aware of appellant's hostile attitude towards him even before the attack, hence, he was already forewarned of impending danger to his life.[11] The rule that a sudden attack by the assailant constitutes treachery, whether frontally or from behind, does not apply where the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was first triggered evidently by a sudden anger of the accused.[12] Since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proved, in our view, the crime committed by appellant is not murder but only homicide. Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalty for homicide is only reclusion temporal. As there is neither | |||||
|
2000-03-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The one-week interval when accused-appellant and his co-conspirators first cased the victim's house up to the actual date of the killing underscores the presence of evident premeditation. For this aggravating circumstance to be considered, there must be proof of the following elements thereof, i.e., 1.] the time the offenders determined to commit the crime; 2.] an act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination; and 3.] a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection upon the consequences of the act.[77] | |||||