G.R. No.

171284 June 29, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.ALFREDO DULIN Y NARAG, Accused-Appellant.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means and methods or forms
in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.29 Two conditions must concur
in order for treachery to be appreciated
, namely: one, the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of
the criminal act which give the person at
tacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and two, said means,
methods or forms of execution were
deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.30 Treachery, whenever alleged
in the information and competently
and clearly proved, qualifies the killing and raises it to the category of murder

G.R. No. 229829

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
ARNEL KALIPAYAN y ANIANO, Accused-Appellant

Treachery has long been defined by this Court, especially as to its character as a
qualifying circumstance for murder.
It is a circumstance that must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself and
constitutes two (2) elements:
(1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend or retaliate, and
(2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person
being attacked.20 A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures
its execution without risk to the
assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an indication that treachery is
present.21 What is decisive is that
the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or
to retaliate.22
In that sense, even attacks that occur from the front may be considered treacherous
if the attack was so sudden and
unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for self-defense.23 The mode of
attack must also be consciously
adopted. The accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in a manner as
to insure the execution of the crime
or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or
retaliate. The attack, then, must not spring
from the unexpected turn of events.2

G.R. No. 193839 November 27, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JAVIER CA�AVERAS, Accused-Appellant.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising
from the defense that the offended party might make.66 Treachery is appreciated as
a qualifying circumstance when the
following elements are shown: a) the malefactor employed means, method, or manner
of execution affording the person
attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and b) the means, method,
or manner of execution was deliberately
or consciously adopted by the offender. Treachery involves not only the swiftness,
surprise, or suddenness of an attack
upon an unsuspecting victim,67 rendering the victim defenseless. It should also be
shown that the mode of attack has
knowingly been intended to accomplish the wicked intent.68

Thus, the second element is the subjective aspect of treachery.69 It means that the
accused must have made some preparation to kill the deceased in a manner that would
insure the execution of the crime or render it impossible or hard for the person
attacked to resort to self-defense or retaliation. The mode of attack, therefore,
must have been planned by the offender and must not have sprung from an unexpected
turn of events.70
We have had occasion to rule that treachery is not present when the killing is not
premeditated,71 or where the sudden
attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a
sudden infuriation on the part of the
accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim,72 or when the killing is
done at the spur of the moment.73