Lawyerly

GR No. 190322

2014-11-26

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that "[t]here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." Thus in order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites must be shown: (1) the employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape."[19]

GR No. 196735

2014-05-05

PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO

LEONEN, J.

Similarly, in People v. Leozar Dela Cruz,[153] this court stated that: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[154] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 196735

2014-05-05

PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO

LEONEN, J.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[154] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 197522

2013-09-11

ELISEO V. AGUILAR v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PER CURIAM

Records bear out facts and circumstances which show that the elements of murder namely: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248[38] of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide[39] are, in all reasonable likelihood, present in Dangupon's case. As to the first and second elements, Dangupon himself admitted that he shot and killed Tetet. Anent the third element, there lies sufficient basis to suppose that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended Tetet's killing in view of the undisputed fact that he was restrained by respondents and thereby, rendered defenseless.[40] Finally, with respect to the fourth element, Tetet's killing can neither be considered as parricide nor infanticide as the evidence is bereft of any indication that Tetet is related to Dangupon.

GR No. 180281

2013-07-01

PEOPLE v. JOEMARIE JALBONIAN alias “Budo”

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The killing committed in this case is neither parricide nor infanticide and the same was attended with treachery. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make."[42] "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape."[43]

GR No. 175980

2012-02-15

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO CABRILLAS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes 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 the defense which the victim might make.[37] "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape."[38]

GR No. 174476

2011-10-11

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD T. AGCANAS

SERENO, J.

In People v. Dela Cruz,[8] this Court reiterated: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

GR No. 179195

2011-10-03

PEOPLE v. ANGELINO YANSON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Both the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted."[44]

GR No. 195665

2011-09-14

PEOPLE v. DAVID MANINGDING

VELASCO JR., J.

That a person was killed. That the accused killed him. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.[37]

GR No. 182918

2011-06-06

PEOPLE v. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE

BRION, J.

Lastly, we find it necessary to increase to P30,000.00 the amount of exemplary damages, to conform with recent jurisprudence. [31]

GR No. 183092

2011-05-30

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SABELLA Y BRAGAIS

BRION, J.

While we affirm the CA's factual findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to award the heirs of Prudencio Labides with exemplary damages, in keeping with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides, "[i]n criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." The award of exemplary damages is fixed at P30,000.00 to conform with recent jurisprudence.[24]

GR No. 189981

2011-03-09

PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO

VELASCO JR., J.

That a person was killed. That the accused killed him. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.[16]

GR No. 192251

2011-02-16

PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence or proof of damages other than the commission of the crime.[52] Based on current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of PhP 50,000 in favor of the heirs of Estrella is in order.[53] Likewise, the CA correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of PhP 50,000 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to her family.[54] With the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the award of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages is justified under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code.[55] Besides, the entitlement to moral damages having been established, the award of exemplary damages is proper.[56]

	GR No. 190322 2014-11-26	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO AMORA Y VISCARRA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that "[t]here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." Thus in order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites must be shown: (1) the employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape."[19]
	GR No. 196735 2014-05-05	PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO LEONEN, J.
Similarly, in People v. Leozar Dela Cruz,[153] this court stated that: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[154] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 196735 2014-05-05	PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO LEONEN, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[154] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 197522 2013-09-11	ELISEO V. AGUILAR v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PER CURIAM
Records bear out facts and circumstances which show that the elements of murder namely: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248[38] of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide[39] are, in all reasonable likelihood, present in Dangupon's case. As to the first and second elements, Dangupon himself admitted that he shot and killed Tetet. Anent the third element, there lies sufficient basis to suppose that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended Tetet's killing in view of the undisputed fact that he was restrained by respondents and thereby, rendered defenseless.[40] Finally, with respect to the fourth element, Tetet's killing can neither be considered as parricide nor infanticide as the evidence is bereft of any indication that Tetet is related to Dangupon.
	GR No. 180281 2013-07-01	PEOPLE v. JOEMARIE JALBONIAN alias “Budo” DEL CASTILLO, J.
The killing committed in this case is neither parricide nor infanticide and the same was attended with treachery. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make."[42] "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape."[43]
	GR No. 175980 2012-02-15	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO CABRILLAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes 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 the defense which the victim might make.[37] "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape."[38]
	GR No. 174476 2011-10-11	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD T. AGCANAS SERENO, J.
In People v. Dela Cruz,[8] this Court reiterated: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
	GR No. 179195 2011-10-03	PEOPLE v. ANGELINO YANSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Both the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted."[44]
	GR No. 195665 2011-09-14	PEOPLE v. DAVID MANINGDING VELASCO JR., J.
That a person was killed. That the accused killed him. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.[37]
	GR No. 182918 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE BRION, J.
Lastly, we find it necessary to increase to P30,000.00 the amount of exemplary damages, to conform with recent jurisprudence. [31]
	GR No. 183092 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SABELLA Y BRAGAIS BRION, J.
While we affirm the CA's factual findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to award the heirs of Prudencio Labides with exemplary damages, in keeping with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides, "[i]n criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." The award of exemplary damages is fixed at P30,000.00 to conform with recent jurisprudence.[24]
	GR No. 189981 2011-03-09	PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO VELASCO JR., J.
That a person was killed. That the accused killed him. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.[16]
	GR No. 192251 2011-02-16	PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence or proof of damages other than the commission of the crime.[52] Based on current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of PhP 50,000 in favor of the heirs of Estrella is in order.[53] Likewise, the CA correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of PhP 50,000 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to her family.[54] With the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the award of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages is justified under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code.[55] Besides, the entitlement to moral damages having been established, the award of exemplary damages is proper.[56]

PEOPLE v. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL