This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, after close scrutiny of the records, we are not fully persuaded that treachery qualified the crime. For treachery to be appreciated, two essential elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.[33] In this case, there is no clear showing that Gedie could not defend himself when he was attacked. Note that there were two stabbing incidents, the first by Hilot and the second by Bihag. The time elapsed between the first and second incidents, however, was not significant. For Gerundino immediately rushed to the kitchen in response to Gedie's cry for help. Hilot had wounded Gedie in the chest. Nonetheless, Gedie continued his struggle against Hilot. Gedie was aided then by his father who had grabbed, disarmed and pinned Hilot to the floor. Gedie backed up against the kitchen wall. This was when the kitchen door opened and appellant appeared and stabbed Gedie in the neck. Although wounded, it was not established that Gedie was already incapacitated from offering any resistance or defense, particularly with the aid of his father, when the second stabbing occurred. He had, after all, just fought Hilot valiantly. He had to be on guard against the possibility that the latter might get loose from Gerundino's hold. Nor could he discount the possibility that Hilot had a confederate waiting to join the assault. In short, the victim was aware of further dangers to life and limb. The fact that the attacker used a bladed weapon did not per se make the attack treacherous. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.[34] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[35] Absent clear and convincing proof of treachery, appellant can only be convicted of homicide. | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Evident premeditation, however, was not sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The following requisites must be established before evident premeditation may be considered in imposing the proper penalty: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[35] Given the attendant factual circumstances in this case, we find them insufficient to establish evident premeditation. | |||||
|
2000-01-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the crime was committed;[9] or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, indubitably pointing to and indicating a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest."[10] "Conspiracy may even be shown through circumstantial evidence, or deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest."[11] | |||||