This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Treachery involves not only the swiftness, surprise, or suddenness of an attack upon an unsuspecting victim,[67] rendering the victim defenseless. It should also be shown that the mode of attack has knowingly been intended to accomplish the wicked intent.[68] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In rejecting Leozar's contention that there was no treachery and in affirming the factual findings of the RTC, the appellate court held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of treachery as enumerated in People v. Aguila[17] and People v. Recepcion.[18] Moreover, citing People v. Agudez,[19] it ratiocinated that the use of the samurai with a 24-inch blade which inflicted the fatal wound and the location of the wound at the neck of Vincent demonstrated the deliberate and treacherous nature of the assault. | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the alternative, appellant claims that he should have been convicted only of homicide, instead of murder, because of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. He argues that it is not sufficient to show that the attack was sudden to establish treachery. He cites People v. Recepcion,[10] where it was held that for treachery to be appreciated, it must also be proved that the malefactor must have employed means, method or manner of execution that would ensure his safety from retaliatory act of the victim; and that such means, method or form of execution are consciously and deliberately adopted by the malefactor. | |||||