Appellant confronted the victim Sayson about intervening in a gambling place. After a brief argument, Sayson and his companion left the store but appellant chased after them and stabbed Sayson twice in the chest. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' ruling that treachery was present, as the sudden and unexpected attack from behind showed appellant's intent to execute the crime.
Appellant confronted the victim Sayson about intervening in a gambling place. After a brief argument, Sayson and his companion left the store but appellant chased after them and stabbed Sayson twice in the chest. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' ruling that treachery was present, as the sudden and unexpected attack from behind showed appellant's intent to execute the crime.
Appellant confronted the victim Sayson about intervening in a gambling place. After a brief argument, Sayson and his companion left the store but appellant chased after them and stabbed Sayson twice in the chest. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' ruling that treachery was present, as the sudden and unexpected attack from behind showed appellant's intent to execute the crime.
Facts: Sayson and his companion ran into appellant in the store. Appellant confronted Sayson about the latter's intervention inside the gambling place. Sayson replied that he wanted to settle things for the sake of peace. Thereafter, Sayson and his companion Gomez left the store but appellant overtook the duo and stabbed Sayson twice on the chest. Appellant immediately ran away while Sayson shouted for help. Issue: Was treachery attendant in the case? Held: Yes. The courts below correctly appreciated the circumstance of treachery. While the stabbing was preceded by a brief argument between appellant and Sayson, it cannot be gainsaid that the attack was indeed sudden and unexpected. Moreover, the fact that appellant went around the store in order to catch up with Sayson showed his tenacity to execute the crime.