This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-03-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x The requirements to prove evident premeditation are the following: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[52] | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In this case, Crescini was on a bicycle and making a turn from Sumulong Highway to Crisostomo Street when appellant blocked his way without warning and suddenly stabbed him. At that time, Crescini had both his hands on the handlebars such that he could not resist any sudden attack. This is the essence of treachery - the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[17] Treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[18] Hence, in this case, we agree that treachery was present in the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Given the factual milieu of the case, this Court is in accord with the trial court's finding that the killing of Basilio was attended by alevosia. This Court has held that treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[31] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[32] As vividly narrated by Rufina and Christopher, the attack on Basilio was sudden. Basilio had no inkling of the impending attack. He was just nonchalantly walking along the road when accused-appellant and his cohort appeared from nowhere and suddenly shot him. Basilio had no opportunity to anticipate the imminence of his attack, nor was he in a position to defend himself or repel the aggression because he was unarmed. Moreover, he was fatally shot on the region of the head, at close range, as evidenced by the powder burns found around the victim's gunshot wounds. To ensure the success of their criminal design, accused-appellant and his cohort fired at the victim five times as shown by the five entrance wounds sustained by the victim in different parts of his body. Undoubtedly, the felons deliberately and consciously adopted the means to ensure their criminal purpose without risk to themselves. That the victim may have been shot from the front, as contended by accused-appellant, does not negate alevosia. The settled rule is that treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without the slightest provocation from a victim who is unarmed, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[33] | |||||