This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons deliberately employing means, methods, or forms in its execution which tend directly and specially to insure the execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[18] Treachery is never presumed and "it is required that the manner of attack must be shown to have been attended by treachery as conclusively as the crime itself."[19] | |||||
|
2015-07-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Villalba,[20] the Court held that the suddenness of the attack, the infliction of the wound from behind the victim, the vulnerable position of the victim at the time the attack was made, or the fact that the victim was unarmed, do not by themselves render the attack as treacherous. The means employed for the commission of the crime or the mode of attack must be shown to have been consciously or deliberately adopted by the accused to ensure the consummation of the crime and at the same time, eliminate or reduce the risk of retaliation from the intended victim.[21] | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although it is not necessary to prove a formal agreement in order to establish conspiracy because conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances attending the commission of an act, it is nonetheless essential that conspiracy be established by clear and convincing evidence.[27] The complainants failed in this regard. Outside of their bare assertions that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. had conspired with each other in order to cause the dismissal of the complaint and then discharge of the annotations, they presented no evidence to support their allegation of conspiracy. On the contrary, the records indicated their own active pjarticipation in arriving at the amicable settlement with the defendants in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598. Hence, they could not now turn their backs on the amicable settlement that they had themselves entered into. | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has held that the suddenness of the attack, the infliction of the wound from behind the victim, the vulnerable position of the victim at the time the attack was made, or the fact that the victim was unarmed, do not by themselves render the attack as treacherous. This is of particular significance in a case of an instantaneous attack made by the accused whereby he gained an advantageous position over the victim when the latter accidentally fell and was rendered defenseless. The means employed for the commission of the crime or the mode of attack must be shown to have been consciously or deliberately adopted by the accused to insure the consummation of the crime and at the same time eliminate or reduce the risk of retaliation from the intended victim. For the rules on treachery to apply, the sudden attack must have been preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the victim, and without provocation on the part of the latter. Treachery is never presumed. Like the rules on conspiracy, it is required that the manner of attack must be shown to have been attended by treachery as conclusively as the crime itself.[33] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense. We explained, "Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present."[10] It would "presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude but most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. x x x There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not just speculative."[11] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is important to note that accused-appellant admitted stabbing the victim but claimed that he did it in self-defense. When self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing was legally justified.[10] Thus, the accused must prove these requisites for self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and (3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel aggression.[11] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The penalty for Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is prision mayor in any of its periods, and the maximum is reclusion temporal in its medium period.[45] Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of a prison term from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Self-defense requires that there be (1) an unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by the offender, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All these conditions must concur.[9] There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[10] | |||||