This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| As to the testimonies of other witnesses, specifically those of Jam Rolando Tendencia and Aurelio Torres, Jr., neighbors of the victims, we find no reason to deviate from the trial court's findings as well. On the contrary, their testimonies, together with those of Evelyn as well as those of the other witnesses, tend to show appellant's possession of the single-bladed knife[25] used and which was later found to match the nature and character of the wounds inflicted upon the victims.[26] The wounds sustained eloquently speak for themselves.[27] | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We reject petitioners' contention that the prosecution failed to prove treachery in the commission of the felony. Petitioners attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected manner as Ruben was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent peril to his life. He had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. He was overwhelmed by the synchronized assault of the three siblings. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the victim.[17] Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery.[18] Obviously, petitioners assaulted the victim because of the altercation between him and petitioner Edgardo Rivera a day before. There being conspiracy by and among petitioners, treachery is considered against all of them.[19] | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Jail Warden, BJMP, is hereby ordered to transmit the living body of accused Agsalog and Siblas to the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Decision.[17] (Underscoring supplied) Hence, this automatic review, appellants ascribing to the trial court the following assignment of errors: I | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Neither Sube nor Menzon is entitled to the benefit of voluntary surrender. For this circumstance to mitigate criminal liability, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[67] Sube never surrendered. He merely reported the incident to his employer, Col. Victor Obillo, who then turned him over to the police for the sole purpose of reporting said incident.[68] Menzon, on the other hand, was arrested by the police.[69] Clearly, these preclude the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the two accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, the trial court erred in its finding that the attack on Salvador was not treacherous. The sudden and unexpected attack, without provocation on the part of Salvador, who was just talking to Henry Hualde in front of his store, showed that treachery attended the shooting. The records reveal that only three seconds elapsed from the time Salvador first saw accused-appellant arriving in a trisikad until he alighted from it and shot David, and only two seconds from the shooting of David to accused-appellant's firing of the gun at Salvador.[21] The swift unfolding of the events placed Salvador in a position where he could not effectively defend himself from the assault on his person. An unexpected and sudden attack, under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack, constitutes alevosia.[22] True, the victim was able to fire back at his assailant, however, he was able to do so only after he was mortally wounded by the treacherous attack made by accused-appellant.[23] | |||||
|
2002-12-04 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "fn">[55] To be sufficient, the surrender must be spontaneous and made in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally, either because they acknowledge their guilt or wish to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that will necessarily be incurred in searching for and capturing them.[56] The only pieces of evidence in support of the plea of voluntary surrender made by petitioner are statements made by two (2) prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly told by other people that he had already gone to the police station. There is no showing that he was not | |||||