Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. PO2
EDUARDOVALDEZandEDWINVALDEZ,accusedappellants.
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
273
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 273
Peoplevs.Valdez
offactaddressedtothetrialcourtfordeterminationbasedontheevidenceon
record.TherecordsshowthattheversionofPO2Valdezwascontrarytothe
establishedfactsandcircumstancesshowingthatheandEdwin,thenarmed
with short firearms, had gone to the jai alai betting station of Moises to
confrontJonathanRubio,thetellerofthebettingbooththenbusilyattending
tobettorsinsidethebooththatbecausetheaccusedwerecallingtoRubioto
come out of the booth, Moises approached to pacify them, but one of them
threatenedMoises:Gustomounahinnakita?thatimmediatelyafterMoises
replied:Huwag!,PO2 Valdez fired several shots at Moises, causing him to
falltothegroundthatPO2ValdezcontinuedfiringatthefallenMoisesthat
Ferdinand(anothervictim)rushedtoaidMoises,hisbrother,butEdwinshot
Ferdinandinthehead,spillinghisbrainsthatsomebodyshoutedtoJoselito
(thethirdvictim)torunthatEdwinalsoshotJoselitotwiceinthebackand
that Joselito fell on a burger machine. The shots fired at the three victims
wereapparentlyfiredfromshortdistances.
SameConspiracyConspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscome
toanagreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommit
the felony.Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitthe
felony.Proofoftheactualagreementtocommitthecrimeneednotbedirect
becauseconspiracymaybeimpliedorinferredfromtheiracts.Herein,both
lowercourtsdeducedtheconspiracybetweentheaccusedfromthemodeand
manner in which they perpetrated the killings. We are satisfied that their
deduction was warranted. Based on the foregoing, PO2 Valdez cannot now
avoid criminal responsibility for the fatal shooting by Edwin of Ferdinand
andJoselito.Bothaccusedwereconvincinglyshowntohaveactedinconcert
toachieveacommonpurposeofassaultingtheirunarmedvictimswiththeir
guns.Theiractinginconcertwasmanifestnotonlyfromtheirgoingtogether
tothebettingstationonboardasinglemotorcycle,butalsofromtheirjoint
attackthatPO2ValdezcommencedbyfiringsuccessiveshotsatMoisesand
immediately followed by Edwins shooting of Ferdinand and Joselito one
after the other. It was also significant that they fled together on board the
samemotorcycleassoonastheyhadachievedtheircommonpurpose.Tobe
aconspirator,onedidnothavetoparticipateineverydetailoftheexecution
neitherdidhehavetoknowtheexactpartperformedbyhiscoconspiratorin
theexecution
274
274 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
275
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 275
Peoplevs.Valdez
lated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the
descriptionofthecrimechargedandtheparticularfactsthereinrecited.The
acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is
sufficienttoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatoffense
is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not
accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every
element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts
and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
determinedbyreferencetothedefinitionsandessentialsofthespecified
crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the
information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation
against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The
presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the
factsthatconstitutetheoffense.
Same Evidence A practical consequence of the nonallegation of a
detail that aggravates his liability is to prohibit the introduction or
consideration against the accused of evidence that tends to establish that
detail.A practical consequence of the nonallegation of a detail that
aggravateshisliabilityistoprohibittheintroductionorconsiderationagainst
theaccusedofevidencethattendstoestablishthatdetail.Theallegationsin
theinformationarecontrollingintheultimateanalysis.Thus,whenthereisa
variancebetweentheoffensechargedintheinformationandthatproved,and
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved,theaccusedshallbeconvictedoftheoffenseprovedincludedinthe
offensecharged,oroftheoffensechargedincludedintheoffenseproved.In
thatregard,anoffensechargednecessarilyincludestheoffenseprovedwhen
someoftheessentialelementsoringredientsoftheformer,asallegedinthe
information, constitute the latter an offense charged is necessarily included
intheoffenseprovedwhentheessentialingredientsoftheformerconstitute
orformpartofthoseconstitutingthelatter.
CriminalLawPenaltiesPursuanttoArticle249oftheRevisedPenal
Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.Pursuant to Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal.Therebeingnocircumstancesmodi
276
276 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
fyingcriminalliability,thepenaltyisappliedinitsmediumperiod(i.e.,14
years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months). Under the
IndeterminateSentenceLaw, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is
taken from prision mayor, and the maximum from the medium period of
reclusiontemporal.Hence,theCourtimposestheindeterminatesentenceof
10yearsofprisionmayorasminimumto17yearsofreclusiontemporalas
maximumforeachcountofhomicide.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellants.
BERSAMIN,J.:
Thesufficiencyoftheallegationsofthefactsandcircumstances
constituting the elements of the crime charged is crucial in every
criminal prosecution because of the everpresent obligation of the
State to duly inform the accused of the nature and cause of the
accusation.
The accused were tried for and convicted of three counts of
murder on January 20, 2005 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 86, in Quezon City. They were penalized with reclusion
perpetua for each count, and ordered to pay to the heirs of each
victimP93,000.00asactualdamages,P50,000.00ascivilindemnity,
andP50,000.00asmoraldamages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC on July
18, 2006, subject to the modification that each accused pay to the
heirs of each victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moraldamages,P25,000.00astemperatedamages,andP25,000.00
asexemplarydamages,pluscostsofsuit.1
_______________
1Rollo,pp.218pennedbyAssociateJusticeRenatoC.Dacudao(retired),with
Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and Associate Justice Monina Arevalo
Zenarosa(retired)concurring.
277
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 277
Peoplevs.Valdez
CriminalCaseNo.0090718
That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the abovenamed accused conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery,evidentpremeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthdid,thenand
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon the person of one FERDINAND SAYSON y
DABOCOL by then and there shooting him with a gun, hitting him on his
head, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wound which was the
directandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
heirsofthesaidFERDINANDSAYSONyDABOCOL.
CONTRARYTOLAW.3
CriminalCaseNo.0090719
That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the abovenamed accused conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery,evidentpremeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthdid,thenand
there,willfully,unlawfullyandfeloni
_______________
2Id.,p.57.
3Id.,p.3.
278
278 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
ously, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of one
MOISES SAYSON, JR. y DABOCOL by then and there shooting him
severaltimeswithagun,hittinghimonhisfaceandchest,therebyinflicting
upon him serious and mortal wound which was the direct and immediate
cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said
MOISESSAYSON,JR.yDABOCOL.
CONTRARYTOLAW.4
CriminalCaseNo.0090720
That on or about the 1st day of March, 2000, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the abovenamed accused conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery,evidentpremeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthdid,thenand
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon the person of one JOSELITO SAYSON y
DABOCOL by then and there shooting him with a gun, hitting him on his
back, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wound which was the
directandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
heirsofthesaidJOSELITOSAYSONyDABOCOL.
CONTRARYTOLAW.5
_______________
4Id.,p.3.
5Id.
279
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 279
Peoplevs.Valdez
themselves at the party (pp. 35, TSN, November 29, 2000 pp. 36, TSN,
February6,2001pp.34,TSN,July31,2001).
At about 10:00 oclock in the evening, the celebration was interrupted
with the arrival of Eduardo and Edwin, who alighted from a motorcycle in
front of the jai alai fronton. Eduardo and Edwin asked the jai alai teller,
Jonathan Rubio (Jonathan), to come out. Jonathan was then attending to
customerswhowerebuyingjaialaitickets.MoisesapproachedEduardoand
Edwinandtriedtoreasonwiththem.EstrellasawEduardoandEdwinarmed
withguns.ShetriedtopreventMoisesfromgoingnearEdwinandEduardo.
Moisesdidnotheedhismotherswarning.HewentoutandadvisedEduardo
andEdwinnottoforceJonathantogooutofthefronton.Estrellathenheard
one of the accusedappellants threaten Moises with the words Gusto mo
unahin na kita? Moises replied huwag. Successive shots were thereafter
heard. Moises fell and was continuously fired upon even after he was
sprawledontheground.Ferdinandimmediatelyapproachedthescenetohelp
his brother Moises. Ferdinand, however was shot on the left temporal
portionofhisheadandfell.SomebodytoldJoselitotorunaway,buthewas
hit at the back while running. Joselito fell on a burger machine (pp. 711,
TSN,November29,2000pp.610,TSN,February6,2001pp.510,TSN,
July31,2001pp.26,September5,2001).
AftershootingtheSaysonbrothers,EduardoandEdwinescapedfromthe
sceneofthecrime(p.10,TSN,February6,2001).6
Inturn,theappellantsbrieffiledbythePublicAttorneysOffice
(PAO)renderedtheversionoftheaccused,towit:
xxx[A]tabout10:00oclockintheevening,HeididelaCruz(abarbecue
vendor) and Noel Valadon (a tricycle driver) saw accused Edwin Valdez
alight from a bus. The latter bought P100.00 worth of barbecue from Heidi
thenproceededtowardshome.HewaswalkingalongCorregidorStreetwhen
Heidi saw Jun Sayson (Moises), then holding a gun, block his (Edwins)
way. Jun Sayson poked a gun at accused Edwin, shouting, Putangina mo,
papatayin kita. The latter raised both his hands and said Wag kuya Jun,
maawaka.
_______________
6Id.,p.5.
280
280 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
_______________
7Id.,pp.67.
8Id.,pp.78.
9Id.,p.17.
281
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 281
Peoplevs.Valdez
acy between the accused and contends that the State did not
establishthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery.10
Ruling
The Court affirms the convictions, but holds PO2 Valdez guilty
only of three counts of homicide due to the failure of the
informations to allege the facts and circumstances constituting
treachery.
Firstofall,PO2ValdezinsiststhattheStateswitnesses(Susan
Sayson,MaritesSaysonandEstrellaSayson)didnotreallyseethe
events as they transpired and that they wrongly identified the two
accusedasthepersonswhohadshotandkilledthevictimsandthat
thevictimswerethemselvestheaggressors.
TheCArejectedPO2Valdezsinsistence,holdingthus:
_______________
10Id.,p.11.
282
282 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
appellants threatened Moises with the words Gusto mo unahin kita? and
who shot her son Moises, by pointing out that she was then facing Moises
because she was preventing him from approaching the accusedappellants,
who were armed with short firearms. Estrella categorically stated that she
saw the accusedappellants alight from their motorcycle on March 1, 2000.
She could not have been mistaken about the identity of the accused
appellants for the simple reason that they are her neighbors and that their
(the accusedappellants) father is her cumpadre. When the incident
happened, the accusedappellants were about eight (8) to ten (10) meters
awayfromwheresheandhersonMoiseswerestanding.Shealsosawwith
herowneyes how her son Moises fell after she heard successive bursts of
gunshots (approximately [9] shots) coming from where the accused
appellantswerestanding.11
_______________
11Rollo,pp.1314(boldemphasesareintheoriginaltext).
12Peoplev.Darilay,G.R.Nos.139751752,January26,2004,421SCRA45,54.
13Peoplev.Santiago,G.R.Nos.13754243,January20,2004,420SCRA248,256
People v. Abolidor, G.R. No. 147231, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 260 People v.
Pacheco,G.R.No.142887,March2,2004,424SCRA164,174Peoplev.Genita,Jr.,
G.R.No.126171,March11,2004,425SCRA343,349Peoplev.Tonog,Jr.,G.R.No.
144497,June29,2004,433SCRA139,153154Perezv.People,G.R.
283
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 283
Peoplevs.Valdez
_______________
No.150433,January20,2006,479SCRA209,219220Bricenio v. People, G.R.
No. 154804, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 489, 495 People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432,
October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219, 230 People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569,
November28,2007,539SCRA306.
14Peoplev.Ebrada,G.R.No.122774,September26,1998,296SCRA353,365.
15Peoplev.Gailo,G.R.No.116233,October.13,1999,316SCRA733,748.
16Rollo,pp.67.
284
284 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
neck19 and that Moises suffered a gunshot wound in the head and
neck19 and that Moises suffered a gunshot wound in the head and
fourgunshotwoundsinthechest.20Also,Dr.WilfredoTierraofthe
NBI MedicoLegal Office opined that the presence of marginal
abrasions at the points of entry indicated that the gunshot wounds
wereinflictedatcloserange.21Giventhatphysicalevidencewasof
thehighestorderandspokethetruthmoreeloquentlythan
_______________
17Garciav.People,G.R.No.144699,March10,2004,425SCRA221,228.
18ExhibitsKandL.
19ExhibitD.
20ExhibitsQandR.
21TSN,May23,2000,pp.313September12,2000,pp.27.
285
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 285
Peoplevs.Valdez
allwitnessesputtogether,22thecongruencebetweenthetestimonial
recollections and the physical evidence rendered the findings
adversetoPO2ValdezandEdwinconclusive.
Thirdly,conspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoan
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit the felony.23 Proof of the actual agreement to commit the
crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied or
inferred from their acts.24 Herein, both lower courts deduced the
conspiracybetweentheaccusedfromthemodeandmannerinwhich
they perpetrated the killings. We are satisfied that their deduction
waswarranted.
Basedontheforegoing,PO2Valdezcannotnowavoidcriminal
responsibility for the fatal shooting by Edwin of Ferdinand and
Joselito. Both accused were convincingly shown to have acted in
concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting their unarmed
victims with their guns. Their acting in concert was manifest not
only from their going together to the betting station on board a
single motorcycle, but also from their joint attack that PO2 Valdez
commenced by firing successive shots at Moises and immediately
followed by Edwins shooting of Ferdinand and Joselito one after
theother.Itwasalsosignificantthattheyfledtogetheronboardthe
same motorcycle as soon as they had achieved their common
purpose.
Tobeaconspirator,onedidnothavetoparticipateineverydetail
of the execution neither did he have to know the exact part
performedbyhiscoconspiratorintheexecutionofthe
_______________
22Peoplev.Bardaje,No.L29271,August29,1980,99SCRA388,399Peoplev.
Nepomuceno,Jr.,G.R.No.127818,November11,1998,298SCRA450,463.
23Art.8,2ndPar.,RevisedPenalCodeAradillosv.CourtofAppeals, G.R. No.
135619,January15,2004,419SCRA514,527Peoplev.Ogapay,No.L28566,August
21,1975,66SCRA209,214.
24Peoplev.Cabrera,G.R.No.105992,February1,1995,241SCRA28,34.
286
286 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
_______________
25Peoplev.DeJesus,G.R.No.134815,May27,2004,429SCRA384,404People
v.Masagnay,G.R.No.137364,June10,2004,431SCRA572,580.
26People v. Natipravat, No. L69876, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 483, 492
People v. Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 355, 364 People v.
Merabueno,G.R.No.87179,December14,1994,239SCRA197,203204.
27Article14(16),RevisedPenalCode.
287
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 287
Peoplevs.Valdez
Forcomplaintorinformationtobesufficient,itmuststatethenameof
the accused the designation of the offense given by the statute the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense the name of the
offendedpartytheapproximatetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense,and
theplacewhereintheoffensewascommitted.Whatiscontrollingisnotthe
title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere
conclusionsoflawmadebytheprosecutor,butthedescriptionofthecrime
charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions
complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a
person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be
charged,andenablethecourttopronounceproperjudgment.Noinformation
for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the
elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be
stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary
to be included therein must be determined by reference to the
definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of
alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the
accusedofthenatureoftheaccusationagainsthimsoastoenablehim
to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused
hasnoindependentknowledgeofthefactsthatconstitutetheoffense.
[emphasissupplied]
_______________
28Lacsonv.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.128096,January20,1999,301SCRA
298,327.
29G.R.No.168168,September14,2005,469SCRA647,666667.
288
288 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
ciently set forth the facts and circumstances describing how
treachery attended each of the killings. It should not be difficult to
seethatmerelyaverringthekillingofapersonbyshootinghimwith
agun,withoutmore,didnotshowhowtheexecutionofthecrime
wasdirectlyandspeciallyensuredwithoutrisktotheaccusedfrom
thedefensethatthevictimmightmake.Indeed,theuseofthegunas
an instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for there are other
instrumentsthatcouldservethesamelethalpurpose.Nordidtheuse
ofthetermtreacheryconstituteasufficientaverment,forthatterm,
standingalone,wasnothingbutaconclusionoflaw,notanaverment
ofafact.Inshort,theparticularactsandcircumstancesconstituting
treacheryasanattendantcircumstanceinmurderweremissingfrom
theinformations.
Todischargeitsburdenofinforminghimofthecharge,theState
must specify in the information the details of the crime and any
circumstance that aggravates his liability for the crime. The
requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to inform the
accusedofthenatureandcauseofthechargeagainsthiminorderto
enablehimtopreparehisdefense.Itemanatesfromthepresumption
ofinnocenceinhisfavor,pursuanttowhichheisalwayspresumed
tohavenoindependentknowledgeofthedetailsofthecrimeheis
being charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of the
informationdeterminethecrimeofwhichhestandschargedandfor
whichhemustbetriedthoroughlyaccordswithcommonsenseand
withtherequirementsofplainjustice,for,astheCourtfittinglysaid
inUnitedStatesv.LimSan:30
Fromalegalpointofview,andinaveryrealsense,itisofnoconcern
to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands
charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. xxx. That to
whichhisattentionshouldbedirected,andinwhichhe,aboveallthings
else,shouldbemostinterested,arethefactsalleged.Therealquestion
isnotdidhe
_______________
30UnitedStatesv.LimSan,17Phil.273(1910).
289
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 289
Peoplevs.Valdez
commitacrimegiveninthelawsometechnicalandspecificname,but
did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the
manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no consequence to him,
either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law
denominates the crime which those acts constitute. The designation of
the crime by name in the caption of the information from the facts
allegedinthebodyofthatpleadingisaconclusionoflawmadebythe
fiscal. In the designation of the crime the accused never has a real
interest until the trial has ended. For his full and complete defense he
need not know the name of the crime at all. It is of no consequence
whatever for the protection of his substantial rights. The real and
important question to him is, Did you perform the acts alleged in the
manner alleged? not Did you commit a crime named murder. If he
performed the acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law determines
what the name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. It is the
provinceofthecourtalonetosaywhatthecrimeisorwhatitisnamed.
xxx.(emphasissupplied)
_______________
31Section4,Rule120,RulesofCourt.
290
290 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Valdez
theformerconstituteorformpartofthoseconstitutingthelatter.32
Wenowfixthepenaltyforeachcountofhomicide.
Pursuant to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
forhomicideisreclusiontemporal.33Therebeingnocircumstances
modifying criminal liability, the penalty is applied in its medium
period(i.e.,14years,8monthsand1dayto17yearsand4months).
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence is taken from prision mayor, and the
maximum from the medium period of reclusion temporal. Hence,
theCourtimposestheindeterminatesentenceof10yearsofprision
mayorasminimumto17yearsofreclusiontemporal as maximum
foreachcountofhomicide.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on July 18, 2006 is MODIFIED by finding PO2
Eduardo Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of
HOMICIDE, and sentencing him to suffer for each count the
indeterminatesentenceof10yearsofprisionmayorasminimumto
17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay to the
respective heirs of the late Ferdinand Sayson, Moises Sayson, Jr.,
and Joselito Sayson the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate
damages.
Theaccusedshallpaythecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED.
Corona(C.J.,Chairperson),LeonardoDeCastro,DelCastillo
andVillarama,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
_______________
32Section4,Rule120,RulesofCourt.
33Article249.Homicide.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsof
Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances
enumeratedinthenextprecedingarticle,shallbedeemedguiltyofhomicideandbe
punishedbyreclusiontemporal.
291
VOL.663,JANUARY18,2012 291
Peoplevs.Valdez
Judgmentmodified.
Notes.Thepresenceofunlawfulaggressionisaconditionsine
quanonforselfdefensetobewarranted.(Ronquillovs.People,614
SCRA704[2010])
Theessenceoftreacheryistheunexpectedandsuddenattackon
thevictimwhichrendersthelatterunableandunpreparedtodefend
himselfbyreasonofthesuddennessandseverityoftheattackThis
criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from behind.
(Peoplevs.Roxas,628SCRA378[2010])
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.