Law Digest. - PINOYDEN


Go Back   PINOYDEN > Tambayan Zone > Humanities

Welcome to PinoyDen Forums.

You are currently browsing our forum as a guest, please consider registering to get full access to all of our forum features, download free games, get help for your pc and cellphone problems and learn new mobile tricks like how to browse the internet using your cellphone for free. All that and more, so what are you waiting for, JOIN us now!!!! Click here to register...
 Topic: Law Digest.  (Read 305 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1]   Go Down
09-13-17 10:23 PM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
Mga boss papost lang po ako ditto ng mga case digest ko. Buburahin ko din po kung bawal.

People vs. Rosendo

 on 28 August 1996 at around 2:30 in the afternoon appellant and his wife Erlinda were inside their house engaged in an animated conversation. Living with them in the same house in Barangay Bulbulala, La Paz, Abra, was appellants father Agustin Florendo. After Erlinda was heard to have told Imong to go to sleep, the latter all of a sudden and without any provocation hacked Erlinda with a bolo in the head and other parts of her body. The victim could only exclaim, Patayennak met ni Imong ngen.

In the meantime, appellant ran to the house of the barangay captain after hacking his wife. When Barangay Tanod Felipe Adora arrived at the house of the barangay captain, he found appellant there holding a bloodied bolo, his hands and feet dripping with blood. Felipe advised appellant to yield his bolo but the latter did not respond. This prompted Felipe to grab his hand and take away his bolo. When Barangay Captain Godofredo Apuya arrived, he asked appellant why his hand and feet were covered with blood but the latter did not answer. Appellant was later taken to the La Paz District Hospital for treatment of his wound and the police authorities of La Paz thereafter took him into custody pending investigation of the incident.

On 2 September 1996 appellant was committed at the Abra Provincial Jail. During his confinement, he was observed to be having difficulty in sleeping. He could not eat during meal times. Most of the time he would stand in his cell without talking to anyone. Thus on 9 September 1996 he was treated as an outpatient at the Abra Provincial Hospital (APH). The Provincial Warden then requested a psychiatric examination of appellant to determine whether he was fit to be arraigned.[5]

On 17 October 1996 appellant was supposed to be arraigned but he appeared without counsel and remained unresponsive to the questions propounded to him. On the same date, the trial court referred appellant to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) for psychiatric evaluation since there was no psychiatrist at the APH. On 20 November 1996 he went to the BGHMC for consultation and was admitted and managed as a case of schizophrenic psychosis, paranoid type (schizophreniform disorder).[6] He was detained at the hospital and given medication for his illness. On 7 June 1997, after confinement for six (6) months and eighteen (18) days, he was discharged and recommitted to the provincial jail as he was found fit to face the charges against him.[7] When finally arraigned on 12 August 1997 appellant pleaded not guilty.

ACCUSED: At the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted killing his wife but put up the defense of insanity to claim exemption from criminal liability.

STATE: Barangay Captain Godofredo Apuya, on the other hand, stated that he already knew that appellant was mentally ill because in two (2) instances, three. (3) months prior to the incident, he saw him singing, dancing and clapping his hands in their yard.[9] Witness Ernesto Anical stated further that on the day of the incident appellant was not in his right senses as he saw him sharpening his bolo with his eyes red and looking very sharp. Yet, he likewise testified that appellant would join the people in their barangay in their drinking sprees and when already drunk he would beat his wife.[10]

HELD:
Since he remembered the vital circumstances surrounding the ghastly incident, he must have been in full control of his mental faculties. His recall of the events that transpired before, during and after the stabbing incident, as well as the nature and contents of his testimony, does not betray an aberrant mind. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequences of his act.

The fact that a person behaves crazily is not conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent meaning of the word crazy is not synonymous with the legal terms insane, non compos mentis, unsound mind, idiot, or lunatic. The popular conception of the word crazy is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy manner but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so.

It is, therefore, beyond cavil that assuming that he had some form of mental illness by virtue of the premonitory symptoms of schizophrenia, it did not totally deprive him of intelligence. The presence of his reasoning faculties, which enabled him to exercise sound judgment and satisfactorily articulate certain matters such as his jealousy over the supposed infidelity of his wife, sufficiently discounts any intimation of insanity when he committed the dastardly crime. While appellant on many occasions before the commission of the crime did things that would indicate that he was not of sound mind, such acts only tended to show that he was in an abnormal mental state and not necessarily of unsound mind that would exempt him from criminal liability.

Appellant was properly convicted of the crime of parricide
Reply #1
09-14-17 12:22 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People vs. Estrada

27th day of December 1994 in the City of Dagupan ROBERTO ESTRADA Y LOPEZ, While the Bishop was giving his blessing, a man from the crowd went up and walked towards the center of the altar. He stopped beside the Bishops chair, turned around and, in full view of the Catholic faithful, sat on the Bishops chair. The man was accused-appellant. Crisanto Santillan, who was assisting the Bishop at the rites, saw accused-appellant. Santillan approached accused-appellant and requested him to vacate the Bishops chair. Gripping the chairs armrest, accused-appellant replied in Pangasinese: No matter what will happen, I will not move out! Hearing this, Santillan moved away.[

Some of the churchgoers summoned Rogelio Mararac, the security guard at the cathedral. Mararac went near accused-appellant and told him to vacate the Bishops chair. Accused-appellant stared intensely at the guard. Mararac grabbed his nightstick and used it to tap accused-appellants hand on the armrest. Appellant did not budge. Again, Mararac tapped the latters hand. Still no reaction. Mararac was about to strike again when suddenly accused-appellant drew a knife from his back, lunged at Mararac and stabbed him, hitting him below his left throat. Mararac fell. Accused-appellant went over the victim and tried to stab him again but Mararac parried his thrust. Accused-appellant looked up and around him. He got up, went to the microphone and shouted: Anggapuy nayan dia! (No one can beat me here!). He returned to the Bishops chair and sat on it again. Mararac, wounded and bleeding, slowly dragged himself down the altar.

Meanwhile, SPO1 Conrado Francisco, who was directing traffic outside, received a report of a commotion inside the cathedral. Rushing to the cathedral, SPO1 Francisco saw a man, accused-appellant, with red stains on his shirt and a knife in one hand sitting on a chair at the center of the altar. He ran to accused-appellant and advised him to drop the knife. Accused-appellant obeyed. He dropped the knife and raised his hands. Thereupon, Chief Inspector Wendy Rosario, Deputy Police Chief, Dagupan City, who was attending the confirmation rites at the Cathedral, went near accused-appellant to pick up the knife. Suddenly, accused-appellant embraced Chief Inspector Rosario and the two wrestled with each other. Chief Inspector Rosario was able to subdue accused-appellant. The police came and when they frisked appellant, they found a leather scabbard tucked around his waist.[8] He was brought to the police station and placed in jail.
STATE
accused-appellant could not properly and intelligently enter a plea because he was suffering from a mental defect; that before the commission of the crime, he was confined at the psychiatric ward of the Baguio General Hospital in Baguio City.  Finding that the questions were understood and answered by him intelligently, the court denied the motion that same day.

ACCUSED



HELD:
 It was highly unusual for a sane person to go up to the altar and sit on the Bishops chair while the Bishop was administering the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation to children in a jampacked cathedral. It goes against normal and ordinary behavior for appellant, without sufficient provocation from the security guard, to stab the latter at the altar, during sacramental rites and in front of all the Catholic faithful to witness. Appellant did not flee, or at least attempt to flee after the stabbing. He nonchalantly approached the microphone and, over the public address system, uttered words to the faithful which no rational person would have made. He then returned to the Bishops chair and sat there as if nothing happened.

HELD
 the case is remanded to the court a quo for the conduct of a proper mental examination on accused-appellant, a determination of his competency to stand trial, and for further proceedings.
Reply #2
09-14-17 09:53 PM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People vs. Estepano

FACTS:
on 16 April 1991, at around ten oclock in the evening, he was on his way home in Barangay IV, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, with Lopito Gaudia and Enrique Balinas. Enroute, they met Dominador Estepano at the BM Trucking compound. At this juncture, according to Florencio, Lopito started to talk to Dominador while he and Enrique stood nearby. Suddenly, Rodrigo appeared and without any provocation stabbed Enrique in the stomach with a guinunting.[2] Ruben who was armed with a cane cutter and Rodney, Dante and Rene, each armed with a bolo, followed suit in hacking Enrique. While this was happening, Dominador told his companions, You better kill him

ACCUSED: With respect to accused-appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only thirteen (13) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Under Art. 12, par. (3), of The Revised Penal Code, a person over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15) is exempt from criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment. The minor referred to here is presumed to have acted without discernment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that such minor acted otherwise.

HELD:

A scrutiny of the records shows that the prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant Rene Estepano acted with discernment. The testimony of prosecution witness Florencio Tayco only attempted to establish, as it did, Renes presence at the crime scene and his supposed participation in the killing of Enrique Balinas.

The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellants Ruben Estepano and Rodney Estepano guilty of murder as the killing was attended by treachery. The evidence shows that they suddenly and unexpectedly attacked the victim while the latter was waiting for Lopito Gaudia who was talking to Dominador Estepano. There was treachery because the following requisites concurred: (a) the culprits employed means, methods or forms of execution which tended directly and specially to insure their safety from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, which meant that no opportunity was given the latter to do so; and, (b) that such means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously chosen.[31] The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed on them in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.[
Reply #3
09-14-17 10:44 PM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
PEOPLE v. VALENTIN DOQUENA

FACTS:
The accused-appellant, who is a minor, was prosecuted for homicide in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, for having killed Juan Ragojos by stabbing him in the breast with a knife on November 19, 1938, in the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan. The court, after trying the case, held that the accused acted with discernment in committing the act imputed to him and, proceeding in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 99, ordered him to be sent to the Training School for Boys to remain therein until he reaches the age of majority. From this order the accused interposed an appeal alleging that the court erred in holding that he had acted with discernment and in not having dismissed the case.

On the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly thirteen years, nine months and five days old. The incident that gave rise to the aggression committed by him on the deceased is narrated in the appealed order as follows:


"Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon of November 19, 1938, the now deceased Juan Ragojos and one Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of the intermediate school of the municipality of Sual, Province of Pangasinan. The herein accused, who was also in said yard, intervened and, catching the ball, tossed it at Juan Ragojos, hitting him on the stomach. For this act of the accused, Juan Kagojos chased him around the yard and, upon overtaking him, slapped him on the nape.  Said accused then turned against the deceased assuming a threatening attitude, for which reason said deceased struck him on the mouth with his fist, returning immediately to the place where Epifanio Rarang was in order to continue playing with him.  The accused, offended by what he considered an abuse on the part of Juan Ragojos, who was taller and more robust than he, looked around the yard for a stone with which to attack the now deceased Juan Ragojos, but finding none, he approached a cousin of his named Romualdo Cocal, to ask the latter to lend him his knife.  Epifanio Rarang, who had heard what the accused had been asking his cousin, told the latter not to give the accused his knife because he might attack Juan Ragojos with it. The accused, however, succeeded in taking possession of the knife which was in a pocket of his cousin's pants. Once in possession of the knife, Valentin Doquena approached Juan Ragojos and challenged the latter to give him another blow with his fist, to which the deceased answered that he did not want to do so because he (Juan Ragojos) was bigger than the accused. Juan Ragojos, ignorant of the intentions of the accused, continued playing and, while he was thus unprepared and in the act of stopping the ball with his two hands, the accused stabbed him in the chest with the knife which he carried."

STATE:
Taking into account the fact that when the accused Valentin Doquena committed the crime in question, he was a 7th grade pupil in the intermediate school of the municipality of Sual, Paugasinan, and as such pupil, he was one of the brightest in said school and was a captain of a company of the cadet corps thereof, and during the time he was studying therein he always obtained excellent marks, this court is convinced that the accused, in committing: the crime, acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and consequences of his act, and so also has this court observed at the time said accused was testifying in his behalf during the trial of this case."

HELD
The proven facts, as stated by the lower court in the appealed order, convinces us that the appeal taken from said order is absolutely unfounded, because it is error to determine discernment by the means resorted to by the attorney for the defense, as discussed by him in his brief. He claims that to determine whether or not a minor acted with discernment, we must take into consideration not only the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the minor, but also his state of mind at the time the crime was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment.

The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking1 into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial
Reply #4
09-14-17 11:15 PM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People vs. Agliday
G.R. No. 140794. October 16, 2001

FACTS:
  • n the evening of February 25, 1999 at about 8:00 oclock, complainant and her husband were then quarreling in connection with his liquor drinking habit. While they were quarreling, their son Richard intervened and tried to pacify his father who [was] under the influence of liquor. Apparently angered and not listening to his son, he proceeded inside their bedroom and took his gun and thereafter shot his son Richard who was trying to pacify them. After seeing her son being shot by her husband, complainant ran outside and called for help.

STATE:
Before the accused may be exempted from criminal liability by reason of Article 12 (paragraph 4), the following elements must concur: (1) a person is performing a lawful act (2) with due care, and (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it.[21] For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful.[22] The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.
ACCUSED:
He claims that it should have believed him because he had absolutely no reason or motive to kill, much less shoot, his own son whom he considered to have had a very bright future. According to him, he was cleaning the shotgun that he would have used for the evening patrol with other barangay tanods when he accidentally touched the trigger and hit Richard, who was going up the stairs into the house with Conchita.[17] He therefore contends that he should be acquitted on the basis of the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12 (paragraph 4) of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant contends that since he was only negligent, he should have been convicted, not of parricide, but only of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide

HELD:
appellant got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his son, who had intervened in the quarrel between the former and Conchita. It must also be pointed out that the firearm was a shotgun that would not have fired off without first being cocked. Undoubtedly, appellant cocked the shotgun before discharging it, showing a clear intent to fire it at someone. Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. Intent is not lacking in the instant case. Appellants external acts prove malice or criminal intent. A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is inconsistent with reckless imprudence. The accused had intended to fire at the victim and in fact hit only the latter. In this case, resenting his sons meddling in his argument with his wife, appellant purposely took his gun and shot his son. WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
Reply #5
09-15-17 01:57 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People v. Tanedo
G.R. No. L-5418             February 12, 1910

FACTS:
That on or about the 26th day of January of this year, the said accused, with the intention of killing Feliciano Sanchez, invited him to hunt wild chickens, and, upon reaching the forest, with premeditation shot him in the breast with a shotgun which destroyed the heart and killed the said Sanchez, and afterwards, in order to hide the crime, buried the body of the deceased in a well. The motive is unknown. The premeditation consists in that the accused had prepared his plans to take the deceased to the forest, there to kill him, so that no one could see it, and to bury him afterwards secretly in order that the crime should remain unpunished.

STATE:
 The accused says that they went to the place where the body of the deceased lay and removed it to a place in the cogon grass where it would not be easily observed. It is certain, however, that the body was concealed in the cogon grass.

ACCUSED:
So when I arrived at that place I saw a wild chickens and I shot him. And after I shot that chicken I heard a human cry. I picked up the chicken and went near the place where I heard the noise, and after I saw that I had wounded a man I went back toward the malecon, where my companions were working, running back, and when I arrived there I left my shotgun behind or by a tree not far from where my companions were working; and I called Bernardino Tagampa to tell him about the occurrence, and to him I told of that occurence because he is my friend and besides that he was a relative of the deceased, and when Tagampa heard of this he and myself went together to see the dead body.

HELD:
The only possible reason that the accused could have for killing the deceased would be found in the fact of a sudden quarrel between them during the hunt. That idea is wholly negative by the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same time, there having been only one shot fired. In this case there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the accused. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the commission of a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious upon the part of the defendant are his concealment and denial. We are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction.

The judgment of conviction is, therefore, reversed, the defendant acquitted, and his discharge from custody ordered, costs de oficio. So ordered.

Reply #6
09-15-17 03:21 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People vs. baldogo
G.R. No. 128106-07. January 24, 2003

FACTS:
In the evening of February 22, 1996, accused-appellant and Bermas served dinner to Julio Sr., Jorge and Julie in the house of the Camachos. At about 7:30 p.m., Julio Sr. left the house to attend a bible study at the dormitory in the Agronomy Section of the Penal Farm. Heather and her son, Jasper, were in Aborlan town. Only Jorge and his sister Julie were left in the house.

After Julio Sr. had left the house, Julie went to the sala to study her assignment. Momentarily, Bermas called Julie from the kitchen saying: Jul, tawag ka ng kuya mo. Julie ignored him. After five minutes, Bermas called her again but Julie again ignored him. Julie was perturbed when she heard a loud sound, akin to a yell, Aahh! Ahh! coming from the kitchen located ten meters from the house. This prompted Julie to stand up and run to the kitchen. She was appalled to see Jorge sprawled on the ground near the kitchen, face down and bloodied. The vicinity was lighted by a fluorescent lamp. Standing over Jorge were accused-appellant and Bermas, each armed with a bolo. The shirt of Bermas was bloodied.[7] Julie was horrified and so petrified that although she wanted to shout, she could not. She ran back to the sala with accused-appellant and Bermas in pursuit. Accused-appellant overtook Julie, tied her hands at her back with a torn t-shirt and placed a piece of cloth in her mouth to prevent her from shouting for help from their neighbors. Bermas went to the room of Julies brothers. Accused-appellant dragged Julie outside the house and towards the mountain. Bermas tarried in the house

In the early morning of February 28, 1996, accused-appellant told Julie that he was leaving her as he was going to Puerto Princesa City. He told her to fend for herself and return to the lowland the next day. After their breakfast, accused-appellant left Julie alone to fend for herself. A few hours after accused-appellant had left, Julie decided to return to the lowlands. She found a river and followed its course toward Balsaham until she saw a hut. She called upon its occupant who introduced himself as Nicodemus. Julie sought help from him. When asked by Nicodemus if she was the girl whom the police authorities were looking for, she replied in the affirmative. Nicodemus brought Julie to Balsaham where they met some personnel of the penal colony and police officers, and Nicodemus turned Julie over for custody to them.
Accused-appellant thought of escaping but could not because Bermas was watching him. With the help of a flashlight brought by Bermas, the three walked towards the mountain, with Julie walking ahead of accused-appellant and Bermas. After walking for hours, they stopped by a tree to which Bermas tied Julie. At one time, while Bermas and accused-appellant were scouring for water, Bermas kicked accused-appellant and pushed him into a ten feet deep ravine. The right hand and foot of accused-appellant sustained bruises. He likewise sustained a sprain on his foot. Bermas left accused-appellant and Julie after 1 days

STATE:
Accused-appellant claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he did what Bermas ordered him to do. Accused-appellant was even protective of Julie. He insists that the latter was not a credible witness and her testimony is not entitled to probative weight because she was merely coached into implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping and detention by Bermas.
ACCUSED:
Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him.

HELD
 the prosecution adduced conclusive proof that accused-appellant indeed conspired with Bermas to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie.

The evidence of the prosecution was even buttressed by the judicial admissions of accused-appellant, thus:

1. After releasing Julie on February 27, 1996, accused-appellant proceeded to Puerto Princesa City and on to Brookes Point where he was arrested a week after said date.[30]

2. Both accused-appellant and Bermas had a motive to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie, that is, to avenge the repeated maltreatment and physical abuse on them by Julio Sr., the father of Jorge and Julie.[31]

The flight of both accused-appellant and Bermas from the house of Julio Sr. to the mountain where they found refuge after killing Jorge, and their motive to kill Jorge Jr. and kidnap and detain Julie in conjunto constitute potent evidence of their confabulation and of their guilt for the death of Jorge and kidnapping and detention of Julie

Reply #7
09-15-17 04:37 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People vs del Rosario : 127755 : April 14, 1999

FACTS:
On 13 May 1996 between 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening, Alonzo stopped his tricycle by the side of Nitas Drugstore, General Luna St., Cabanatuan City, when three women flagged him. Parked at a distance of about one and a-half (1) meters in front of him was a tricycle driven by accused Joselito del Rosario. At that point, Alonzo saw two (2) men and a woman grappling for possession of a bag. After taking hold of the bag one of the two men armed with a gun started chasing a man who was trying to help the woman, while the other snatcher kicked the woman sending her to the ground. Soon after, the armed man returned and while the woman was still on the ground he shot her on the head. The bag taken by the man was brought to the tricycle of accused del Rosario where someone inside received the bag. The armed man then sat behind the driver while his companion entered the sidecar. When the tricycle sped away Alonzo gave chase and was able to get the plate number of the tricycle. He also recognized the driver, after which he went to the nearest police headquarters and reported the incident.

STATE
it is natural for people to be seized by fear when threatened with weapons, even those less powerful that a gun, such as knives and clubs. People will normally, usually and probably do what an armed man asks them to do, nothing more, nothing less. In the instant case, del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to help a stranger. A person under the same circumstances would be more concerned with his personal welfare and security rather than the safety of a person whom he only saw for the first time that day.

ACCUSED:
The conviction of del Rosario must be set aside. His claim for exemption from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 5, Revised Penal Code as he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force must be sustained. He was then unarmed and unable to protect himself when he was prevented at gunpoint by his co-accused from leaving the crime scene during the perpetration of the robbery and killing, and was only forced to help them escape after the commission of the crime.

HELD:
Del Rosario maintains that Boy Santos never left the tricycle and that the latter pointed his gun at him and threatened to shoot if he tried to escape. He also asserted that it was Jun Marquez who shot the victim and sat behind him in the tricycle.

From the narration of witness Alonzo, these events stood out: that after the bag of the victim was grabbed, her male helper was chased by a man holding a gun; that the gunwielder returned and shot the victim and then sat behind the driver of the tricycle; and, the bag was given to a person who was inside the tricycle. Taking the testimony of witness Alonzo in juxtaposition with the testimony of del Rosario, it can be deduced that Jun Marquez was the person witness Alonzo was referring to when he mentioned that a helper of the lady was chased by the other man and that this other man could not be Boy Santos who stayed inside the tricycle and to whom the bag was handed over. This conclusion gives credence to the claim of del Rosario that Boy Santos never left the tricycle, and to his allegation that Boy Santos stayed inside the tricycle precisely to threaten him with violence and prevent him from fleeing; that there could have been no other plausible reason for Boy Santos to stay in the tricycle if the accused was indeed a conspirator; that Boy Santos could have just left the tricycle and helped in the commission of the crime, particularly when he saw the victim grappling with Dodong Bisaya and resisting the attempts to grab her bag; and, that Boy Santos opted to remain inside the tricycle to fulfill his preordained role of threatening del Rosario and insuring that he would not escape and leave them behind.

Even if the tricycle of del Rosario was only parked one meter and a half (1) in front of the tricycle of witness Alonzo, the latter still could not have totally seen and was not privy to events that were transpiring inside the vehicle, i.e., the pointing of the gun by Boy Santos at del Rosario simultaneously with the robbing and shooting of the victim. From the exhibits submitted by the prosecution panel the back of the sidecar of del Rosario tricycle was not transparent.[28]

There is no doubt that the fear entertained by del Rosario because of the gun directly pointed at him was real and imminent. Such fear rendered him immobile and subject to the will of Boy Santos, making him for the moment of automaton without a will of his own. In other words, in effect, he could not be any more than a mere instrument acting involuntarily an against his will. He is therefore exempt from criminal liability since by reason of fear of bodily harm he was compelled against his will to transport his co-accused away from the crime scene.

A transgression of the law has occurred. Unfortunately, an innocent person lost her life and property in the process. Someone therefore must be held accountable, but it will not be accused Joselito del Rosario; we must acquit him. Like victim Virginia Bernas, he too was a hapless victim who was forcibly used by other persons with nefarious designs to perpetrate a dastardly act. Del Rosario's defense of "irresistible force" has been substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. On the other hand, conspiracy between him and his co-accused was not proved beyond a whimper of a doubt by the prosecution, thus clearing del Rosario of any complicity in the crime charged.
Reply #8
09-15-17 09:52 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
u.s v vincentillo 19 phil 118
G.R. No. L-6082            March 18, 1911

FACTS:
In the exercise of his functions as municipal president, to make arrest of the complaining witness which resulted in his alleged unlawful detention. As we understand the evidence, the alleged offense with which the complaining witness in this case was charged was committed by him in the presence of the municipal president, who must be held to have had all the usual powers of a police officer for the making of arrest without warrant.

It may be that the defendant was not friendly to the arrested man, and that he was not sorry to see him exposed to considerable inconvenience and delay in the proceedings incident to his trial, but there is nothing in this record upon which to base a finding that his defendant caused the arrest and the subsequent detention of the prisoner otherwise than in the due performance of his official duties; and there can be no doubt of his lawfully authority in the premises.

STATE:
 True, three days were expended in doing, so, but it was conclusively proven at the trial that at the time of the arrest neither the local justice of the peace nor his auxiliary were in the municipality, and to reach the justice of the peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, it was necessary to take a long journey by boat

ACCUSED
The judgment of conviction of the court below must therefore be reversed, unless the evidence discloses that having made the arrest, the defendant arbitrarily and without legal authority, as it is alleged, cause the complaining witness to be detained for a period of three days without having him brought before the proper judicial authority for the investigation and trial of the charge on which he was arrested.

The evidence discloses, moreover, that with all practicable dispatch, the prisoner was forwarded first to one and then to the other of the adjoining municipalities for trial, the failure to secure trial on the first occasion being due to the fact that the written complaint, which was intrusted to the policeman in charge of the prisoner, was either lost or stolen.

HELD:
 The trial judge lays great stress upon the trivial nature of the offense for which the arrest was made, but keeping in mind the fact that there was no judicial officer in the remote community where the incident occurred at the time of the arrest, and no certainty of the early return of the absent justice of the peace, or his auxiliary, we are not prepared to hold, in the absence of all the evidence on this point that in a particular case of a defiance of local authority by the willful violation of a local ordinance, it was not necessary, or at least expedient, to make an arrest and send the offender forthwith to the justice of the peace of a neighboring municipality, if only to convince all would-be offenders that the forces of law and order were supreme, even in the absence of the local municipal judicial officers.

The judgment of the lower court convicting and sentencing the defendant must be reversed and he is hereby acquitted of the offense with which he is charged, with the costs in both instances de oficio.

Reply #9
09-15-17 10:27 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People vs. Bandian G.R. No. 45186           September 30, 1936

FACTS
At about 7 o'clock in the morning of January 31, 1936, Valentin Aguilar, the appellant's neighbor, saw the appellant go to a thicket about four or five brazas from her house, apparently to respond to a call of nature because it was there that the people of the place used to go for that purpose. A few minutes later, he again saw her emerge from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to support herself. He ran to her aid and, having noted that she was very weak and dizzy, he supported and helped her go up to her house and placed her in her own bed. Upon being asked before Aguilar brought her to her house, what happened to her, the appellant merely answered that she was very dizzy. Not wishing to be alone with the appellant in such circumstances, Valentin Aguilar called Adriano Comcom, who lived nearby, to help them, and later requested him to take bamboo leaves to stop the hemorrhage which had come upon the appellant. Comcom had scarcely gone about five brazas when he saw the body of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. Comcom informed Aguilar of it and latter told him to bring the body to the appellant's house. Upon being asked whether the baby which had just been shown to her was hers or not, the appellant answered in the affirmative.

 Dr. Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her house and in her own bed; that after giving birth she threw her child into the thicket to kill it for the purpose of concealing her dishonor from the man, Luis Kirol, with whom she had theretofore been living maritally, because the child was not his but of another man with whom she had previously had amorous relations. To give force to his conclusions, he testified that the appellant had admitted to him that she had killed her child, when he went to her house at the time and on the date above-stated.


STATE
Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed wilfully or consciously, or at least it must be result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. Even in cases where said crimes are committed through mere imprudence, the person who commits them, under said circumstances, must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties, or must be conscious of his acts, in order that he may be held liable.

This illness and her extreme debility undoubtedly caused by her long illness as well as the hemorrhage which she had upon giving birth, coupled with the circumstances that she is a primipara, being then only 23 years of age, and therefore inexperienced as to childbirth and as to the inconvenience or difficulties usually attending such event due to her debility or dizziness, which causes may be considered lawful or insuperable to constitute the seventh exempting circumstance


ACCUSED
Dr. Nepomuceno himself affirmed that the wounds found in the body of the child were not caused by the hand of man but by bites animals, the pigs that usually roamed through the thicket where it was found. The evidence certainly does not show that the appellant, in causing her child's death in one way or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did so wilfully, consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with a former lover, which was not unknown to her second lover

HELD
The act performed by the appellant in the morning in question, by going into the thicket, according to her, to respond to call of nature, notwithstanding the fact that she had fever for a long time, was perfectly lawful. If by doing so she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not because of imprudence or any other reason than that she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she should not be blamed therefor because it all happened by mere accident, from liability any person who so acts and behaves under such circumstances

In conclusion, taking into account the foregoing facts and considerations, and granting that the appellant was aware of her involuntary childbirth in the thicket and that she later failed to take her child therefrom, having been so prevented by reason of causes entirely independent of her will, it should be held that the alleged errors attributed to the lower court by the appellant are true; and it appearing that under such circumstances said appellant has the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances in her favor, is hereby acquitted of the crime of which she had bee accused and convicted, with costs de oficio, and she is actually confined in jail in connection with this case, it is ordered that she be released immediately.
Reply #10
09-16-17 02:17 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People vs. Oyanib
G.R. Nos. 130634-35. March 12, 2001

Facts
"In the evening of September 4, 1995, after supper, his daughter Desilor handed Manolito a letter from the Iligan City National High School. The letter mentioned that his son Julius failed in two (2) subjects and invited his parents to a meeting at the school. Because he had work from 8:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon the next day, Manolito went to Titas house to ask her to attend the school meeting in his behalf.[24]

Upon reaching Titas rented place, he heard sounds of romance (kissing) coming from the inside. He pried open the door lock using a hunting knife. He caught his wife Tita and Jesus having sexual intercourse. Jesus was on top of Tita and his pants were down to his knees.

Upon seeing him, Jesus kicked Manolito in the cheek. Manolito immediately stabbed Jesus. Though Jesus was 59 in height and weighed about 70 kg., the suddenness of the assault caused him to lose his balance and fall down. Manolito took advantage of this opportunity and stabbed Jesus in the stomach. Tita left the room upon seeing Manolito, only to come back armed with a Tanduay bottle. She hit Manolito in the head, while at the same time shouting kill him Jake, kill him Jake.

In the commotion, Manolito stabbed Jesus, hitting him in the abdomen. Jesus fell down and Manolito stabbed him again. Meanwhile, Tita stabbed Manolito in the arm with the broken Tanduay bottle. This angered Manolito and he stabbed Tita in the left breast. He stabbed her three (3) more times in different parts of her body. Tita fell near the lifeless body of her paramour. It was at this point that Edgardo, the owner of the house Tita was renting, appeared from the ground floor and inquired about what had happened. Manolito told Edgardo not to interfere because he had nothing to do with it.

STATE
the Solicitor General submitted that accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he killed the victims under the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.

ACCUSED
Accused admitted the killings. He argued that he killed them both under the exceptional circumstances provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. He raised several errors allegedly committed by the trial court, which boiled down to the basic issue of whether accused is entitled to the exceptional privilege under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.[

HELD
After an assiduous analysis of the evidence presented and the testimonies of the witnesses, we find accused to have acted within the circumstances contemplated in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Admittedly, accused-appellant surprised his wife and her lover in the act of sexual intercourse.
To the mind of the court, what actually happened was that accused chanced upon Jesus at the place of his wife. He saw his wife and Jesus in the act of having sexual intercourse. Blinded by jealousy and outrage, accused stabbed Jesus who fought off and kicked the accused. He vented his anger on his wife when she reacted, not in defense of him, but in support of Jesus. Hence, he stabbed his wife as well several times. Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza surrendered to the police when a call for him to surrender was made.
The vindication of a Mans honor is justified because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates; the law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her, even with death. But killing the errant spouse as a purification is so severe as that it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto; and it must be resorted to only with great caution so much so that the law requires that it be inflicted only during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.
Reply #11
09-16-17 03:43 AM
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline
 
Posts: 398
Thank You: 82
Reputation: 1
cyberman1 has no influence.barely matters.is working their way up.might someday be someone...is on the verge of being accepted.is a rising star!has a powerful will.is a force to reckon with.has great potential!has an aura about them.is leading the good life!is awe-inspiring!
People v. Veneracion
G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

All dates are GMT+8:00. The date now is 09-20-17 08:06 AM
WWW.PINOYDEN.COM.PH does not store any files on it's server, we are just indexing other sites contents!
WWW.PINOYDEN.COM.PH [Ang Tambayan ng pinoy!] © copyright 2008-2009 All Rights Reserved.
Contents published on www.PinoyDen.com.ph requires permission for reprint.

Page created in 0.184 seconds with 21 queries.