When homicide becomes murder

HOMICIDE is “any killing of a human being by another human being.”

For the killing to be culpable, it must coincide with the intent to harm or injure another.

Death as a result of nonfatal intentional injuries may also be considered as homicide (see Barron’s Law Dictionary)

Intent is a condition of the mind which can only be proven by manifest acts.

The testimonies of witnesses giving detailed accounts of the events leading to the commission of the crime are vital in proving such acts.

These witnesses, having personal knowledge of the facts, can assist the court in determining whether intent actually exists.

If the resulting death was due to imprudence, the crime committed is reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Examples include deaths due to the collision of two cars, or death from an illegally discharged firearm colloquially known as “ligaw na bala.”

Murder, on the other hand, is the unlawful killing of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, through any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Similar to homicide, the victim dies; however, the presence of such circumstances increase the imposable penalties.

Premeditation should be evidenced in the execution of a

A person who employs means to weaken the defense of another, with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, and with the aid of armed men shall be guilty of murder (Article 248, Revised Penal Code).

Treachery is present when the offender avails (himself/herself) of “means, methods or forms… to ensure its execution [killing] without risk to himself… from the defense which the offended party might make” (People v. Grabador, et al., G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

“‘The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless… victim no chance to resist or escape the sudden blow.’

“A frontal attack may be regarded as treacherous when it was so sudden on an unsuspecting, or an unarmed victim, who had no chance to repel the attack or avoid it” (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

In People v. Grabador, “Dennis (victim) had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming.

Although Dennis and Rodolfo (an accused) had an altercation, they shook hands before parting ways.

The said gesture assuaged Dennis into believing their issues had been sorted… to Dennis’ surprise, Rodolfo came back after 15 minutes, this time accompanied by three other armed men” (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

“Dennis, who was unarmed, was completely unaware of the imminent peril to his life. In a rapid motion, the men, including Alex (another accused), suddenly shot Dennis with their sumpak (homemade gun).

“The onslaught was so sudden and unexpected that Dennis had no chance to run, mount a defense or evade the bullets” (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

The circumstance of abuse of superior strength may be considered by the court as qualifying or aggravating if “the accused purposely uses excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked, or if there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of superior strength” (People v. Norada, G.R. 218958, December 13, 2017).

In the case of People v. Aquino, et al., the prosecution failed to adduce evidence of a relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force, except for showing that two assailants stabbed the victim while three others restrained him.

HOW does the Chinese government view the United States at this historical juncture?

To get an idea of just how Beijing looks at the US, there’s a February 2023 paper issued by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs titled “US hegemony and its perils.”

This is the latest pronouncement and as official as it gets, so I’m publishing pertinent parts of it as written.

Here’s what it said.

“Since becoming the world’s most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has acted more boldly to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community.

“The United States has developed a hegemonic playbook to stage ‘color revolutions’, instigate regional disputes, and even directly launch wars under the guise of promoting democracy, freedom and human rights. Clinging to the Cold War mentality, the United States has ramped up bloc politics and stoked conflict and confrontation.

“It has overstretched the concept of national security, abused export controls and forced unilateral sanctions upon others.

“It has taken a selective approach to international law and rules, utilizing or discarding