Criminal Law Cases on Treachery
6
Criminal Law 8a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT CASTILLO y MONES, accused-appellant. [289 SCRA 213 (1998)] Facts: Around 1AM on May 5, 1993, Eulogio Velasco, floor manager of Cola Pub house along EDSA, was sitting outside the pub while talking with his co-worker. Soon, their customer Tony Dometita came out of the pub and informed him that he’ll be on his way home. However, when he was about an arm’s length from Eulogio, appellant Robert Castillo came out from nowhere and suddenly and without warning stabbed Tony with a fan knife on his left chest. As Tony pleaded for help, appellant stabbed him once more, hitting him on the left hand. Eulogio placed a chair between the two to stop Castillo from further attacking Tony. Tony ran away but appellant pursued him. Eulogio came to know later that Tony had died. His body was found outside the fence of Iglesia ni Cristo, EDSA. Medico-legal officer testified that the proximate cause of Tony’s death was the stab wound on his chest. Defense: Appellant Robert Castillo claims that decedent Tony was attacked by 2 malefactors as testified by one Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle driver, who saw men ganging up on Tony by the compound of Iglesia ni Cristo. Ruling: The killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is committed when 2 conditions concur: (1) means, methods and forms of execution employed left the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) that such means, methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused w/o danger to his person. These requisites were evidently present when the accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend. The action rendered it difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence of “defense wounds” does not negate treachery because the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest and hence, rendered Tony defenseless.
description
treachery
Transcript of Criminal Law Cases on Treachery
Criminal Law 8aPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee, vs. ROBERT CASTILLO y MONES, accused-appellant.[289 SCRA 213 (1998!Fa"#$% Around 1AM on May 5, 1993, Eulogio Velasco, foor manager of Cola Pub house along EDA, !as si""ing ou"side "he #ub !hile "al$ing !i"h his co%!or$er&oon, "heir cus"omer 'ony Dome"i"a came ou" of "he #ub and informed him "ha" he(ll be on his !ay home&)o!e*er, !hen he !as abou" an arm(s leng"h from Eulogio, a##ellan" +ober" Cas"illo came ou" from no!here and suddenly and !i"hou" !arning s"abbed 'ony !i"h a fan $nife on his lef" ches"&As 'ony #leaded for hel#, a##ellan" s"abbed him once more, hi""ing him on "he lef" hand&Eulogio #laced a chair be"!een "he "!o "o s"o# Cas"illo from fur"her a""ac$ing 'ony& 'ony ran a!ay bu" a##ellan" #ursued him&Eulogio came "o $no! la"er "ha" 'ony had died&)is body !as found ou"side "he fence of ,glesia ni Cris"o, EDA&Medico%legal o-cer "es"i.ed "ha" "he #ro/ima"e cause of 'ony(s dea"h !as "he s"ab !ound on his ches"&&'('n$'% A##ellan" +ober" Cas"illo claims "ha" deceden" 'ony !as a""ac$ed by 0 malefac"ors as "es"i.ed by one Edilber"o Marcelino, a "ricycle dri*er, !ho sa! men ganging u# on 'ony by "he com#ound of ,glesia ni Cris"o&R)lin*% 'he $illing !as 1uali.ed by "reachery&'reachery is commi""ed !hen 0 condi"ions concur2 314 means, me"hods and forms of e/ecu"ion em#loyed lef" "he #ersona""ac$ed no o##or"uni"y "o defend himself or "o re"alia"e, and 304 "ha" such means, me"hods, and forms of e/ecu"ion !ere delibera"ely and consciously ado#"ed by "he accused !5o danger "o his #erson&'hese re1uisi"es !ere e*iden"ly #resen" !hen "he accused a##eared from no!here and s!if"ly and une/#ec"edly s"abbed "he *ic"im 6us" as he !as bidding goodbye "o his friend&'he ac"ion rendered i" di-cul" for "he *ic"im "odefend himself&'he #resence of 7defense !ounds8 does no" nega"e "reachery because "he .rs" s"ab, fa"al as i" !as, !as infic"ed on "he ches" and hence, rendered 'ony defenseless&+HEREFORE, "he a##eal is hereby DENIED and "he assailed Decision is AFFIRMED, bu" "he a!ard of ac"ual and moral damages is DELETED for lac$ of fac"ual basis&Cos"s agains" a##ellan"&Criminal Law 8,PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee, vs. RAMIL &ACIBAR an/ +ARLITO &ICON, accused-appellants. E/Fa"#$% A" around nine o(cloc$ in "he e*ening of e#"ember 5, 1991, 9elda :acalangco !as si""ing behind "heir bed near her husband, ;osue, !ho !as si""ing a" "he end of "he bed and !as lif"ing "he mos1ui"o ne"& uddenly, "here !as an e/#losion, follo!ed by "he sounds of foo"s"e#s& 9elda loo$ed "hrough "heir !indo! and sa! a##ellan" 9arli"o Diconcoming ou" from under "heir house, s"oo#ing and carrying a long .rearm& #on "he #rom#"ing of Vargas, Cando !en" "o "he fac"ory "o ge" hissalary& Candocamebac$angrybecausehe!asunable"oge" hissalaryfrom"hesecre"ary, nor!asheable"oge"aloanof P1@@&@@from"hecare"a$er& A##aren"ly,Candoalreadyhad#re*iousmisunders"andings!i"h"hecare"a$er, so"his"ime, he"hrea"ened "o $ill "he care"a$er& 'he grou# con"inued "heir drin$ing session&A" around112@@P&M&, Vargas, +a#cing, andCando, armed!i"h"!o$ni*esandcarrying a shoulder bag, climbed "he fence of "he fac"ory& 'hey !al$ed on "hegal*ani=edironroof"o!ards"heo"herbuilding& Dnebyone, "heysli##ed"hroughanarro!!indo!a""hesideof"hebuilding& 'he"rio#roceeded"o"he*ic"im(sroom,!hich !as ligh"ed by a fuorescen" lam#& Cando #ic$ed a #iece of lead #i#e and "oldVargas"o#ull o#en"hedoor !here"he*ic"im(smos1ui"one" !asa""ached& 9henVargas #ulled o#en "he door, "he mos1ui"o ne" sna##ed and Cando s"ruc$ "he *ic"im on"he head !i"h "he lead #i#e& 'he *ic"im a!a$ened and Cando demanded money fromhim& 9hen "he *ic"im re#lied "ha" he had no money, Cando s"ruc$ himagain !i"h "helead #i#e& :lood oo=ed from "he *ic"im(s head& A" around E2@@ A&M&, Mrs& Corma Chu, "hefac"ory o!ner, disco*ered "he dead body of Buis +emoria"a& 'he fac"ory *an !as alsomissing& A hys"erical Mrs& Chu called "he :arangay Ca#"ain, !ho in "urn re#or"ed "heinciden" "o "he #olice&R)lin*% 'here is "reachery !hen "he oFender commi"s any of "he crimes agains" "he #erson, em#loying means, me"hods, or forms in "he e/ecu"ion "hereof !hich "end direc"ly and s#ecially "o insure i"s e/ecu"ion, !i"hou" ris$ "o himself arising from "he defense !hich "he oFended #ar"y migh" ma$e& 'he condi"ions !hich mus" concur before"reachery can be a##recia"ed are2 3a4 "he em#loymen" of means of e/ecu"ion "ha" gi*es "he #erson a""ac$ed no o##or"uni"y "o defend himself or "o re"alia"eG and 3b4 "ha" said means of e/ecu"ion be delibera"ely and consciously ado#"ed& 'he essence of "reachery lies in "he ado#"ion of !ays "ha" minimi=e or neu"rali=e any resis"ance !hich may be #u"u# by "he oFended #ar"y& 'he $illing of "he slee#ing *ic"im herein !as a""ended by "reachery since he !as in no #osi"ion "o fee or defend himself&'he #resence of "reachery, "hough, should no" resul" in 1ualifying "he oFense "o murder,for "he correc" rule is "ha" !hen i" ob"ains in "he s#ecial com#le/ crime of robbery !i"h homicide, such "reachery is "o be regarded as a generic aggra*a"ing circums"ance, robbery !i"h homicide being a case of a com#osi"e crime !i"h i"s o!n de.ni"ion and s#ecial #enal"y in "he +e*ised Penal Code
