This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime."[24] "The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim."[25] The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.[26] "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked."[27] The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.[28] | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In finding that appellant is guilty of homicide, instead of murder, the CA ruled that there was an absence of the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[23] For it to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.[24] On the other hand, to appreciate treachery, two (2) conditions must be present, namely, (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[25] The CA, therefore, did not err when it ruled that the killing of the victim was neither attended by evident premeditation nor treachery, thus: The element of evident premeditation is manifested by the careful planning and preparation undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of the crime. A perusal of the evidence on record shows that the altercation between appellant Duavis and Dante Largado, Sr. took place at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 2, 2003, and the hacking incident took place at around 5:30 in the afternoon of the same day. To the mind of the Court, the lapse of time between the decision and the execution is not sufficient to allow appellant to fully reflect upon the consequences of his act and to effectively and efficiently prepare and plan his actions prior to the commission of the crime. Although it may be argued that there was some kind of premeditation on the part of appellant Duavis, it was not proved to be evident. | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime."[20] "The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim."[21] The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.[22] "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked."[23] The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.[24] | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime.[8] Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage,[9] or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.[10] To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.[11] The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties.[12] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.[108] Taking advantage of superior strength does not mean that the victim was completely defenseless.[109] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People v. Ventura, we opined that there are no fixed and invariable rules in considering abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense of the victim.[110] Superiority does not always mean numerical superiority. Abuse of superiority depends upon the relative strength of the aggressor vis-à-vis the victim.[111] Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim, considering the position of both, and the employment of the means to weaken the defense, although not annulling it.[112] The aggressor must have advantage of his natural strength to ensure the commission of the crime.[113] | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In order that evident premeditation may be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) the time when accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act.[48] | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In order to successfully claim that he acted in defense of a relative, the accused must prove the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed or injured; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) the person defending the relative had no part in provoking the assailant, should any provocation been given by the relative attacked.[26] Unlawful aggression is a primary and indispensable requisite without which defense of relative, whether complete or otherwise, cannot be validly invoked.[27] | |||||