This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Iglesia,[24] we held:"In this case, although the attack was sudden, the evidence shows that the victim was not caught completely off guard. For the fact is that the victim and the accused-appellant engaged in combat that lasted for several minutes before the former was finally over-powered and killed. This negates the existence of the first element of treachery, i.e., a sudden attack giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The existence of a struggle before the fatal blow was dealt on the victim shows he was forewarned of the impending attack and that he was afforded the opportunity to put up a defense. In addition, the prosecution witnesses themselves testified that a heated argument arose between accused-appellant and the victim prior to the attack. This would be sufficient to forewarn the victim against any assault which accused-appellant might launch against him. Nor was evidence to show that accused-appellant consciously adopted his mode of attack in order to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. The second element, i.e., adoption of means, methods, or forms to ensure the commission of the crime, was thus not proved by the prosecution." In view of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellant can only be convicted of homicide punishable by reclusion temporal.[25] There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty is the medium period of reclusion temporal.[26] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should be meted out the indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| i.e., a sudden attack giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Thus, in People v. Iglesia,[21] the Court ruled that the existence of a struggle before the fatal blow was dealt on the victim shows he was forewarned of the impending attack and that he was afforded the opportunity to put up a defense. In addition, accused-appellant and his companion declared their intention to kill the victim and thereafter chased him before the combat begun. This would be sufficient to forewarn the victim of the danger on his life. Moreover, no evidence was presented to show that accused-appellant consciously adopted his mode of attack in order to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. The second element, i.e., adoption of means, methods, or forms to ensure the commission of the crime, was thus not proved by the prosecution. Nonetheless, abuse of superior strength qualified the killing of the victim to murder. It must be stressed that though the victim defended himself with a bolo, accused-appellant was armed with a wooden stick and a bolo while accused Tarasona was armed with two bolos. | |||||
|
2002-04-16 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH ON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DISREGARDING RECENT AND PERTINENT JURISPRUDENCES ON THE MATTER."[4] The Court, in fine, is confronted with the question of whom to believe the word of the complainant or that of the accused. The process of ferreting the truth from the conflicting claims of witnesses becomes even more tedious than usual in crimes of rape for it is only the accused and the complainant who normally can give the decisive testimony on the case. Obviously, the task falls squarely on the trial court which must come face to face with the witnesses and observe their demeanor at the stand.[5] It stands to reason that great reliance is placed by the appellate court on the assessment made by the trial court on the credibility of the witness. This case is no exception for, carefully going through the records, the Court finds no cogent reason to make it depart from the rule. | |||||
|
2001-11-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The information in this case alleged that in the commission of the crime, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. The trial court was correct in not appreciating evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance since this is inherent in the crime of robbery.[29] The trial court was likewise correct in not appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Although the victim was caught by surprise when he received the first stab on his left thigh, the evidence shows that the victim was not caught completely off guard. For the fact is that the victim, accused-appellant, and the latter's co-accused engaged in combat for several minutes before the former received the fatal stab wounds. This negates the existence of the first element of treachery, i.e., a sudden attack giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The existence of a struggle before the fatal blows were dealt on the victim shows he was forewarned of the impending attack and that he was afforded the opportunity to put up a defense.[30] However, despite the absence of treachery, the factual circumstances of the crime show that the killing of the victim was qualified by abuse of superior strength, which is expressly alleged in the Information. Accused-appellant and his co-accused did not only enjoy superiority in number but they also used knives and a stone while their victim was unarmed. Thus, there was physical disparity between the protagonists and abuse of superior strength was obvious. The force used by the aggressors was out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim.[31] | |||||