December 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure

Here are selected December 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure:

1.         REVISED PENAL CODE

Aggravating circumstances; 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 any defense which the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated.  First, is the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate.  Second, the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted. People of the Philippines v. Florencio Agacer, et al, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011.

Aggravating circumstances; treachery.  The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. On appeal, the Supreme Court debunked appellants’ contention that the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling that treachery qualified the killing of Cesario to murder since the attack on Cesario was frontal, therefore no element of surprise on the victim or suddenness of the assault that characterizes treachery. In this case, treachery is evident. From the facts, Cesario could not have been aware that he would be surrounded, attacked and killed by the appellants who were all related to him.  He could not have also been aware that Eddie had a shotgun concealed in a sack because if he was, he would not have casually approached Florencio when the latter summoned him.  Unfortunately, while Cesario was advancing towards Florencio, Eddie shot him at close range without any warning whatsoever.  Evidently, the crime was committed in a manner that there was no opportunity for Cesario to defend himself.  Also, the mode of attack did not spring from the unexpected turn of events but was clearly thought of by the appellants.  Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a chance to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his person. People of the Philippines v. Florencio Agacer, et al, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011.