People vs. Dela Cruz G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010
Murder -- Qualified by Treachery
Facts:
In an Information filed on August 11, 2003, accused-appellant Leozar Dela Cruz y Balobal was indicted for the crime of murder of Vincent Pimentel under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the charge.
On September 5, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding Leozar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder attended by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. On February 27, 2008, the CA rendered the appealed decision, affirming the findings of the RTC and the conviction of Leozar but modifying the award of damages.
Accused raises the same assignment of errors as in his Brief, to wit: first, that the courts a quo erred in appreciating the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery; and second, that the courts a quo gravely erred in convicting him of murder instead of homicide.
Issue:
Was there treachery?
Ruling:
Yes. The fact that Leozar and Vincent did not quarrel prior to the killing is indicative of the treachery employed by Leozar. After Vincent paid Leozar some money, he left and went inside the alley. When Vincent came back to Mockingbird St. from the alley, Leozar deliberately employed means with treachery affording Vincent no opportunity to defend himself, i.e., Leozar draped his arm around Vincent and slash/slit his neck using a 24-inch bladed samurai. The fatal neck wound caused Vincent’s death, described in his death certificate as "hemorrhagic shock secondary to an incised wound of the neck." All told, the victim was unaware of the imminent attempt on his life, and was not in a position to defend himself. Clearly, treachery was present in this killing.
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.
Murder -- Qualified by Treachery
Facts:
In an Information filed on August 11, 2003, accused-appellant Leozar Dela Cruz y Balobal was indicted for the crime of murder of Vincent Pimentel under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the charge.
On September 5, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding Leozar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder attended by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. On February 27, 2008, the CA rendered the appealed decision, affirming the findings of the RTC and the conviction of Leozar but modifying the award of damages.
Accused raises the same assignment of errors as in his Brief, to wit: first, that the courts a quo erred in appreciating the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery; and second, that the courts a quo gravely erred in convicting him of murder instead of homicide.
Issue:
Was there treachery?
Ruling:
Yes. The fact that Leozar and Vincent did not quarrel prior to the killing is indicative of the treachery employed by Leozar. After Vincent paid Leozar some money, he left and went inside the alley. When Vincent came back to Mockingbird St. from the alley, Leozar deliberately employed means with treachery affording Vincent no opportunity to defend himself, i.e., Leozar draped his arm around Vincent and slash/slit his neck using a 24-inch bladed samurai. The fatal neck wound caused Vincent’s death, described in his death certificate as "hemorrhagic shock secondary to an incised wound of the neck." All told, the victim was unaware of the imminent attempt on his life, and was not in a position to defend himself. Clearly, treachery was present in this killing.
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.