SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

PADILLA, J.:

I vote to affirm the death penalty imposed by the trial court. There was, in my view, treachery employed by the accused-appellant in killing his wife because the latter, even in the course of her arguments with accused-appellant (her husband), did not expect the latter to suddenly and unexpectedly hack her. She had no opportunity to defend herself from so sudden and precipitate an attack. In People v. Lualhati,1 the Court stated thus:

"There was no sufficient provocation on the part of the victim which would have placed him on guard and prepared him for accused-appellants assault. In People v. Cruz (213 SCRA 611) we held that there was treachery if the commission of the crime was sudden and unexpected even if the armed attack was made face to face. Thus, under the circumstances, the victim was clearly not in any position to defend himself to the unreasonable and unexpected attack of the accused-appellant."

There was also, in my view, no voluntary surrender on the part of accused-appellant as to entitle him to the mitigating circumstance on this score. He did not voluntarily surrender. He was fetched by the police authorities in the house of Dodong Opulentisima. In People v. Flores,2 the Court stated:

"Neither can we accept accused-appellants plea of voluntary surrender. He did not surrender to the police. In fact, the evidence adduced shows that it was the police authorities who came to the factory looking for him. It was there that accused-appellant was pointed to them. Seeing that the police was already approaching him, accused-appellant did not offer any resistance and peacefully went with them. With the police closing in, accused-appellant actually had no choice but to go with them. To be sure, no surrender was made by accused-appellant."

By this senseless and brutal killing of his wife, the mother of his three (3) children, accused-appellant, in my opinion, has lost the right to live. Society will be far better off without him around. While compassion is, in itself, a virtue, it cannot and should not replace justice under law, in this particular case, justice to the victim and her three (3) orphaned children.