Digests crim 2
-
Upload
alyssa-mae-basallo -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Digests crim 2
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
1/26
PARUNGAO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 96025 May 15, 1991
FACTS:Petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds allegedly committed
by him as a municipal treasurer. After hearing, the Sandiganbayan acquitted him of
malversation of public funds but convicted him instead of illegal use of public funds.
ISSU:Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of illegal use of public funds?
RU!ING:Technical malversation is not included in nor does it necessarily include the
crime of malversation of public funds charged in the information. Since the acts
constituting the crime of technical malversation were not alleged in the information, and
since technical malversation does not include, or is not included in the crime ofmalversation of public funds, he cannot resultantly be convicted of technical
malversation.
What the respondent court should have done was to follow the procedure laid
down in Section , !ule " of the !ules on #riminal Procedure$
Section . When mista%e has been made in charging the proper offense & When it
becomes manifest at any time before 'udgment, that a mista%e has been made in
charging the proper offense, and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged, or of any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be
discharged, if there appears to be good cause to detain him. (n such case, the court
shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case
upon the filing of the proper information. W)*!*+!*, the petition is hereby
-!AT*/. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is !*0*!S*/. The petitioner is
A#12(TT*/ of the crime of illegal use of public funds.
POP! vs. AYUMAN
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
2/26
"2# SCRA 2"$
FACTS:This is an automatic review of the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt, 3rach
", #agayan de ro #ity where the accused, #onrado Ayuman, was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and was sentenced to suffer the
supreme penalty of death and to pay the heirs of the victim P45,555. n April 66, ""7
at around 5$4 in the morning, *rmita Ayuman, the wife of the accused, rushed her
five8year old son Sugar !ay to the *mergency !oom of the orthern 9indanao 9edical
#enter. When a nurse, too% the child:s vital signs, it appeared that he was dead on
arrival.
*rmita:s statement was noted in the emergency room record. An autopsy was done to
the dead body of Sugar !ay. n April 6;, ""7, Sugar !ay was buried. The accused
was nowhere to be found. either did he report for wor% from April 6; to 9ay 6, ""7.
/uring the burial, *rmita cried and shouted, 6 the deceased is %illed by the
accused@ and >; the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, of the accused or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse@ The
%ey element here is the relationship of the offender with the victim. All the above
elements were sufficiently proven by the prosecution, specifically on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. And also, the circumstances cited by the trial court, when
viewed in their entirety, were as convincing as direct evidence and as such, negate the
innocence of the accused. therwise stated, the prosecution established beyond a
shadow of doubt, through circumstantial evidence, that accused committed the crime of
parricide. )ere is a father who mercilessly abused his own son and refused to bring him
to the hospital, although on the verge of death, for prompt medical treatment. Such a
heartless conduct is condemnable and is e=tremely contrary to human nature. *very
father is e=pected to love his children and shower them with acts of affection and
tenderness.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
3/26
POP! vs. PUDAN%$$ SCRA 266
FACTS:This is an appeal from the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt 3ranch ,
9alaybalay #ity, finding the accused guilty of murder and was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of his victim +lorencio (lar the
sum of P45,555. According to the Prosecution, in the morning of +ebruary 6, ""4,
+lorencio (lar, accompanied by his grandson, !eymar%, went to the house of Buceno
Tulo to buy a piglet. Buceno was fashioning out a mortar for pounding palay near his
house when +lorencio and !eymar% arrived. +lorencio told Buceno that he wanted to
buy a piglet from him. Accused suddenly arrived and stabbed +lorencio five times, with
a sharp, pointed %nife locally %nown as plamingco. Terrified of what he witnessed,
Buceno fled towards the house of his neighbor. Coung !eymar% ran bac% to his parentsD
house and told his mother, *rlinda, what transpired. *rlinda ran swiftly to BucenoDs placebut +lorencio was already dead, bathed in his own blood and lying by the side of the
rice paddy. The body remained where it had fallen until the arrival of the police later that
day. n the part of the /efense, the wife of the accused, Beah testified, admitted having
an illicit relationship with the deceased. Their relationship had been going on for two
years and was %nown in their barangay, e=cept her !oger. (n the morning of +ebruary
6, ""4, +lorencio came to their house, while she was breastfeeding her child, and
was loo%ing for her husband.
ISSU:Whether the Trial #ourt erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of
murder instead of Article 6E7 of the !evised Penal #ode.
RU!ING:The /ecision of the Trial #ourt was affirmed. 3y raising Article 6E7 of the
!evised Penal #ode as his defense, accused admitted that he %illed the victim. 3y
invo%ing this defense, he waived his right to the constitutional presumption of innocence
and bears the burden of proving FG That a legally married person >or a parent surprises
his spouse >or his daughter, under years of age and living with him, in the act of
committing se=ual intercourse with another person@ F6G That he or she %ills any or bothof them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical in'ury in the act or
immediately thereafter@ F;G That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his
wife >or daughter or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse@ To satisfy this burden, accused must prove that he actually surprised his wife
and +lorencio in flagrante delicto, and that he %illed the man during or immediately
thereafter. What is important is that his version of the stabbing incident is diametrically
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
4/26
opposed to the convincing accounts of Prosecution Witnesses. +urther eroding the
defense of the accused is the fact that he immediately fled right after the stabbing
incident. )e hid for about three years until he was arrested.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
5/26
POP! vs. ABARCA15% SCRA #%5
FACTS:This is an appeal from the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt of Palo, Beyte,
sentencing the accused8appellant +rancisco Abarca to death for the comple= crime of
murder with double frustrated murder. The case was elevated to this #ourt in view of the
death sentence imposed. With the approval of the new #onstitution, abolishing the
penalty of death and commuting all e=isting death sentences to life imprisonment, we
required the accused8appellant to inform us whether or not he wished to pursue the
case as an appealed case. (n compliance therewith, he filed a statement informing us
that he wished to continue with the case by way of an appeal. n Huly 4, "E at
around I$55 P9, accused +rancisco Abarca went home and found his wife, Henny, and
Jhingsley Joh in the act of se=ual intercourse. When the wife and Joh noticed the
accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was
then peeping above the built8in cabinet in their room 'umped and ran away. The
accused went to loo% for a firearm at Tacloban #ity. At around I$;5 p.m. he got an 98I
rifle and went bac% to his house. )e was not able to find his wife and Joh there. )e
proceeded to the hangout of Jingsley Joh. The accused found Joh playing mah8'ong
and fired at him three times with his rifle. Joh was hit and died instantaneously. Arnold
and Bina Amparado who were occupying the ad'acent room were also hit by the shots
fired by the accused. Arnold and Bina Amparado were rushed to the hospital and were
rendered timely medical assistance that prevented their deaths.
ISSU: Whether or not Article 6E7 of the !evised Penal #ode defining death inflictedunder e=ceptional circumstances can be applied in the instant case dissolving the
criminal liability of the accused for the murder of the deceased.
RU!ING:C*S. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article 6E7 of the !evised Penal
#ode which provides$ KAny legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in
the act of committing se=ual intercourse with another person, shall %ill any of them or
both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical in'ury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.L
Article 6E7 prescribes the following elements$ > that a legally married person
surprises his spouse in the act of committing se=ual intercourse with another person@
and >6 that he %ills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
These elements are present in this case.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
6/26
*ven though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca caught his wife
with Joh and the time he %illed Joh, the %illing was still the direct by8product of AbarcaDs
rage. Therefore, Abarca is not liable for the death of Joh.
)owever, Abarca is still liable for the in'uries he caused to the two other persons
he shot in the ad'acent room but his liability shall not be for frustrated murder. (n the first
place, Abarca has no intent to %ill the other two persons in'ured. )e was not also
committing a crime when he was firing his gun at Joh M it being under Art. 6E7. Abarca
was however negligent because he did not e=ercise all precaution to ma%e sure no one
else will be hurt. As such, he shall be liable for less serious physical in'uries through
simple negligence for the in'uries suffered by the two other persons who were in the
ad'acent room when the incident happened.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
7/26
POP! vs. CORICOR#9 P&I!. 6#2
FACTS: Appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Pedro Bego in the sum of P6,555, and to pay the costs, having been found bythe lower court guilty of murder committed on September 4, "E. 3ased upon
circumstantial and testimonial evidences that were presented it was found out that the
wife of the accused was having illicit se=ual relationship with the victim and that the
accused has caught them in actual se=ual activity.
ISSU: Whether or not the accused is guilty for the crime of murder.
RU!ING: C*S. We are of the opinion that the circumstances under which Pedro Bego
was %illed by appellant were as narrated in the latter:s testimony and, accordingly, the
appealed decision must be modified, so as to reduce the penalty to that provided in thefollowing article of the !evised Penal #ode.
A!T. 6E7. /eath or physical in'uries inflicted under e=ceptional circumstances. & Any
legally married person, who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing se=ual
intercourse with another person, shall %ill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical in'ury, shall suffer
the penalty of destierro.
(f he shall inflict upon them physical in'uries of any other %ind, he shall be e=empt from
punishment.
These rules shall applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to
their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while the daughters
are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or
shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled
to the benefits of this article.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
8/26
POP! vs. MA!!ARI"0" SCRA 1#0
FACTS: While Hoseph and BiNa >wife were watching a bas%etball game at the barangay
bas%etball court, !ufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed weapons,
arrived and attempted to stab Hoseph@ but Hoseph was able to run away. When they
were not able to catch up with him, !ufino boarded and drove the truc% par%ed near the
bas%etball court and continued chasing Hoseph until the truc% ran over the latter, which
caused his instantaneous death.
Appreciating the qualifying circumstance of use of motor vehicle, it convicted
!ufino of murder.
ISSU: Whether or not the use of a motor vehicle is a qualifying circumstance for the
crime of murder?
RU!ING: The evidence shows that !ufino deliberately used his truc% in pursuing
Hoseph. 2pon catching up with him, !ufino hit him with the truc%, as a result of which
Hoseph died instantly. (t is therefore clear that the truc% was the means used by !ufino
to perpetrate the %illing of Hoseph.
The case of People v. Muoz cited by !ufino finds no application to the present
case. (n the said case, the police patrol 'eep was merely used by the accused therein in
loo%ing for the victim and in carrying the body of the victim to the place where it wasdumped. The accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latterOs death. (n the
present case, the truc% itself was used to %ill the victim by running over him.
2nder Article 6E of the !evised Penal #ode, a person who %ills another by
means of a motor vehicle is guilty of murder. Thus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies
the %illing to murder. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. (n view of
the absence of an aggravating circumstance and the presence of one mitigating
circumstance, reclusion perpetua, not death, should be the penalty to be imposed on
!ufino.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
9/26
POP! vs. '&ISN&UNT%6$ SCRA 5$6
FACTS: (n the 9unicipality of San Huan, 9etro 9anila, Philippines, and within the
'urisdiction of this )onorable #ourt, the accused whisenhunt did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to %ill and ta%ing advantage of superior strength,
attac%, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one *lsa
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
10/26
The trial court was correct in convicting accused8appellant of the crime of murder,
qualified by outraging and scoffing at the victimDs person or corpse. This circumstance
was both alleged in the information and proved during the trial. At the time of its
commission, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal ma=imum to death. o
aggravating or mitigating circumstance was alleged or proved@ hence, the penalty shall
be imposed in its medium period. Therefore, the trial courtDs imposition of the penalty of
reclusion perpetua was correct, and need not be modified.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
11/26
POP! vs. CONTINNT%%9 SCRA 1
FACTS: That on or about the 6st day of April, "", in 1ueNon #ity, Philippines
conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent to
%ill, with evident and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attac%, assault, and employ
personal violence upon the person of #B. HA9*S . !W*, a 2.S. Army fficer, by
then and there firing at him while then on board a Toyota car, hitting him on the different
parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wounds, which
were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and pre'udice of the
heirs of said #ol. Hames . !owe in such amount as may be awarded under the
provisions of the #ivil #ode.
That on or about the 6st day of April "", in 1ueNon #ity, Philippines, accused
conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent to
%ill, with evident premeditation and treachery and with the use of armalite rifles and
motor vehicles, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attac%, assault
and employ personal violence upon the person of HA12( 3(2CA, by then and there
firing at him while then on board a Toyota car, hitting him on the scalp and body, thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wounds, thus performing all the acts of
e=ecution which would have produced the crime of murder, but nevertheless did not
produce it, by reason of causes independent of their own will, that is the timely
intervention of medical assistance, to the damage and pre'udice of said Hoaquin 3inuya
in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the #ivil #ode.
ISSU: Whether or not the testimony of prosecution eyewitness 9eriam Qulueta was
credible.
RU!ING: The testimony of 9eriam Qulueta does not suffer from any serious and
material contradictions that can detract from her credibility. The trial court accorded full
faith and credence to her said testimony. The defense failed to adduce any evidence to
establish any improper motive that may have impelled the same witness to falsely testify
against the appellants. (t is well8settled rule that the evaluation of the testimonies ofwitnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because such
court has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and determine if
they are telling the truth or not.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
12/26
POP! vs. ANTONIO%%5 SCRA 6"6
FACTS:Arnulfo Arnie Tuadles succumbed instantaneously to a single gunshot wound
right between the eyes, inflicted with deadly precision by the bullet of a ."mm caliber
3eretta pistol of appellant Antonio. Prior to the shooting, appellant and the victim spent
several hours having fun playing ; feet away from each
other.
According S- 3obis who witnessed the said crime@ Tuadles and Antonio were
arguing. Antonio even called out$ SargeR SargeR SargeR Hust before the shooting, 3obis
heard Antonio saying$ Putang ina %a %asi.
ISSU: Whether or not the shooting was attended with the qualifying circumstance of
treachery for the crime of murder?
RU!ING$ (f Antonio had consciously adopted means and methods to %ill Tuadles, there
was no reason to call for a Sergeant >Sarge or any eyewitness for that matter. The
aggravating circumstance of treachery is not present when decision to attac% was
arrived at on the spur of the moment. The trial court:s ruling that the mere suddennessof an attac% ma%es the %illing a murder because of treachery is not consistent with the
decisions of this #ourt.
To the point is our ruling in the case of People v. Alacar, where we held that there
was no treachery where the attempt to %ill resulted from a verbal altercation. 9ore
recently, in People v. Salvador, we pronounced that$ There would be no treachery when
the victim was placed on guard, such as when a heated argument preceded the attac%,
or when the victim was standing face to face with his assailants and the initial assault
could not have been unforeseen. Antonio can only be convicted of the lesser crime of
homicide under Article 6E" of the !evised Penal code.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
13/26
POP! vs. T&AN(
2"9 SCRA 5"
FACTS: #ourt records show that !oland Hohn #hapman, 9aureen )ultman, and
another friend, Hussi Beino, were coming home from a party at around three o:cloc% in
the morning of Huly ;, "". Beino was wal%ing )ultman home along 9ahogany street
in /asmarias 0illage, 9a%ati #ity when Teehan%ee came up behind them in his car. )e
stopped the two and demanded that they show some identification. Beino too% out his
wallet and showed Teehan%ee his Asian /evelopment 3an% (/. Teehan%ee grabbed the
wallet. #hapman, who was waiting in a car for Beino, stepped in and as%ed Teehan%ee$
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
14/26
#oncededly, the shooting of #hapman was carried out swiftly and left him with no
chance to defend himself. *ven then, there is no evidence on record to prove that
appellant consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attac% to insure the
accomplishment of his criminal design without ris% to himself. (t appears to us that
appellant acted on the spur of the moment. Their meeting was by chance. They were
strangers to each other. The time between the initial encounter and the shooting was
short and unbro%en. The shooting of #hapman was thus the result of a rash and
impetuous impulse on the part of appellant rather than a deliberate act of will. We have
consistently ruled that mere suddenness of the attac% on the victim would not, by itself,
constitute treachery. )ence, absent any qualifying circumstance, appellant should only
be held liable for )omicide for the shooting and %illing of #hapman.
As to the wounding of Hussi Beino and the %illing of 9aureen )ultman, we hold
that treachery clearly attended the commission of the crimes. The evidence shows that
after shooting #hapman in cold blood, appellant ordered Beino to sit on the pavement.
9aureen became hysterical and wandered to the side of appellant:s car. When
appellant went after her, 9aureen moved around his car and tried to put some distance
between them. After a minute or two, appellant got to 9aureen and ordered her to sit
beside Beino on the pavement. While seated, unarmed and begging for mercy, the two
were gunned down by appellant. #learly, appellant purposely placed his two victims in a
completely defenseless position before shooting them. There was an appreciable lapse
of time between the %illing of #hapman and the shooting of Beino and )ultman & a
period which appellant used to prepare for a mode of attac% which ensured the
e=ecution of the crime without ris% to himself. Treachery was thus correctly appreciated
by the trial court against appellant insofar as the %illing of )ultman and the wounding ofBeino are concerned.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
15/26
POP! vs. MANRO
21$ SCRA $5
FACTS: This was gruesome murder in a main thoroughfare an hour before sundown. A
hapless foreign religious minister was riddled with bullets, his head shattered into bits
and pieces amidst the revelling of his e=ecutioners as they danced and laughed around
their quarry, chanting the tune
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
16/26
the fatal shots themselves, their collective action showed a common intent to commit
the criminal acts.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
17/26
POP! vs. UN!AGADA%$9 SCRA 22"
FACTS: A*#(T 2BA-A/A y S2A12* alias LBapad< was charged and
subsequently convicted by the court a quo and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P55,555.55 as moral damages,P45,555.55 as
temperate damages, and another P45,555.55 as e=emplary damages.(n the evening
/anilo Baurel left his house together with *dwin Selda, a visitor from 3acolod #ity, to
attend a public dance at !iNal St., 9ag8asawang Taytay, )inigaran, egros
ccidental. Two >6 hours later, or around $55 o:cloc% that evening, /anilo as%ed
*dwin to ta%e a short brea% from dancing to attend to their personal necessities outside
the dance hall. nce outside, they decided to have a drin% and bought two >6 bottles of
-old *agle beer at a nearby store.
ot long after, /anilo, halfway on his first bottle, left to loo% for a place to relieve
him. According to *dwin, he was only about three >; meters from /anilo who was
relieving himself when a short, dar% bearded man wal%ed past him, approached /anilo
and stabbed him at the side. /anilo retaliated by stri%ing his assailant with a half8filled
bottle of beer. Almost simultaneously, a group of men numbering about seven >7,
ganged up on /anilo and hit him with assorted weapons, i.e., bamboo poles, stones
and pieces of wood. *dwin, who was petrified, could only watch helplessly as /anilo
was being mauled and overpowered by his assailants. /anilo fell to the ground and
died before he could be given any medical assistance.
ISSUS: . Whether the testimony of prosecution witness was credible@ and
6. Whether the lower court is right in convicting the accused of murder
qualified by treachery and not death in a tumultuous affray.
RU!ING:Art. 64. /eath caused in a tumultuous affray. 8 When, while several persons,
not composing groups organiNed for the common purpose of assaulting and attac%ing
each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous
manner, and in the course of the affray someone is %illed, and it cannot be ascertained
who actually %illed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical in'uries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision
mayor. 0erily, the attac% was qualified by treachery. The deceased was relieving
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
18/26
himself, fully unaware of any danger to his person when suddenly the accused wal%ed
past witness *dwin Selda, approached the victim and stabbed him at the side. There
was hardly any ris% at all to accused8appellant@ the attac% was completely without
warning, the victim was caught by surprise, and given no chance to put up any defense.
The penalty for murder under Art. 6E of The !evised Penal #ode is reclusion temporal
in its ma=imum period to death. Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the
penalty should be imposed in its medium period which, as correctly imposed by the
court a quo, is reclusion perpetua.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
19/26
POP! vs. MARAMARA%1# SCRA 222
FACTS: The case is an appeal from the decision of the !egional Trial #ourt of 9asbateconvicting the accused #resenciano9aramara of murder and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victimDs heirs the amount of P5,555 as
medical and funeral e=penses and P45,555 as moral damages. The accused
challenged the findings of the trial court in order to secure an acquittal or, at the least,
being held liable only for the death of 9iguelito/onato in a tumultuous affray as defined
in Article 64 of the !evised Penal #ode.
The information against the accused alleged that in the evening of ovember , "",
in 3arangay #alpi, #laveria, 9asbate, the accused, with intent to %ill, evident
premeditation, treachery and ta%ing advantage of nighttime, assaulted and shot with a
handgun 9iguelito/onato and hit the latter on the chest, thereby inflicted the wound
which caused his death.
ISSU: Whether accused is guilty of death caused in tumultuous affray instead of
murder.
RU!ING: There was no merit in accusedDs position that he should be held liable only for
death caused in tumultuous affray under Article 64 of the !evised Penal #ode. (t was
in such situation that accused came at the scene and 'oined the fray purportedly topacify the protagonists when 9iguelito attac%ed him causing four stab wounds in
different parts of his body. Assuming that a rumble or a free8for8all fight occurred at the
benefit dance, Article 64 of the !evised #ode cannot apply because prosecution
witnesses !icardo and !egarder/onato positively identified the accused as 9iguelitoDs
%iller. While the accused himself suffered multiple stab wounds, which at first, may lend
verity to his claim that a rumble has ensued and that 9iguelito inflicted upon him these
wounds, the evidence was inadequate to consider them as mitigating circumstance
because defenseDs version stood discredited in light of the more credible version of the
prosecution as to the circumstances surrounding 9iguelitoDs death. )owever, the
Supreme #ourt did not subscribe to trial courtDs appreciation of treachery, which was
discussed only in the dispositive portion of the decision and which was based solely on
the fact that the accused used a firearm in %illing the victim 9iguelito.
(n the absence of any convincing proof that the accused consciously and
deliberately adopted means by which he committed the crime in order to ensure its
e=ecution, the Supreme #ourt resolved the doubt in favor of the accused. And since
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
20/26
treachery was not adequately proved, the accused was convicted of homicide only. The
Supreme #ourt modified the 'udgment appealed from and found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, defined and penaliNed under Article 6E" of the
!evised Penal #ode, for the %illing of 9iguelito /onato without the attendance of any
modifying circumstance. Accordingly, the #ourt sentenced the accused to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years,
and four months of reclusion temporal, as ma=imum, with all its accessory penalties,
and to pay the heirs of 9igueltio in the amount of P5,555 as actual damages and
P45,555 as death indemnity.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
21/26
SISON vs. POP!
250 SCRA 5$
FACTS: Tension and animosity between #ory loyalists and 9arcos loyalists bro%e intoviolence. n Huly 67, ", it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a %nown
#oryista. The prosecution established that on Huly 67, "I, a rally was scheduled to
be held at the Buneta by the 9arcos loyalist. They applied a permit to hold a rally but it
was denied. /espite this setbac%, three thousand gathered at the !iNal 9onument led
by liver BoNano and 3en'amin uega. o tic%et could be produced. #olonel /ula
Torres gave them ten minutes to disperse. Atty. BoNano turned towards his group and
said gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga #ory infiltrators. The police pushed the crowds
and used tear gas to disperse them.
At about E$55 pm, a small group of loyalists converged at the #hinese -arden.Annie +errer was there and they informed her of the dispersal and +errer angrily
ordered them gulpihin ninyo ang mga #ory hec%lersR A few minutes later, she was
arrested by the police. Somebody then shouted %ailangan gumanti tayo ngayonR a
commotion ensued and !enato 3anculo, cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists attac%ing
the persons in yellow. The man in yellow t8 shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers
appeared to be 9arcos loyalists. Thay caught Salcedo and bo=ed and %ic%ed and
mauled him. )e was hit on various parts of his body. Sumilang tried to pacify the
maulers so he could e=tricate Salcedo from them but the maulers pursued Salcedo.
Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo but 3illosos emerged from behind Sumilang as
another man bo=ed Salcedo on the head. /e Bos Santas, Tan bo=ed Salcedo while
Pacadar. Tamayo bo=ed Salcedo on the left 'aw, Sision repeatedly bo=ed him.
Salcedo managed to get away but accused Tan, Pacadar pursued him, mauling
Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life. The mauling resumed at the !iNal
monument and continued along !o=as 3oulevard until Salcedo collapsed and lost
consciousness. Sumilang with a help of traffic enforcer brought Salcedo to 9edical
#enter 9anila but was refused admission. So they too% him to P-) where he died upon
arrival. The trial court rendered decision finding !omeo Sison, ilo Pacadar, Hoel Tan,
!ichard /e Bos Santos and Hoselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of murderqualified by treachery. +errer was convicted as an accomplice.
The #ourt of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court by acquitting +errer
but increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused e=cept for Tamayo. The court
convicts Tamayo of homicide.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
22/26
ISSU: Whether or not the #ourt of Appeals erred in finding that the crime committed is
murder and not death caused in a tumultuous affray?
RU!ING: +or Article 64 of the !evised Penal #ode to apply@ it must be established
that$ > there be several persons@ >6 that they did not compose groups organiNed for
the common purpose of assaulting and attac%ing each other reciprocally@ >; these
several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous
manner@>E someone was %illed in the course of the affray@ >4 it cannot be ascertained
who actually %illed the deceased@ and >I that the person or persons who inflicted
serious physical in'uries or who used violence be can be identified.
A tumultuous affray ta%es place when a quarrel occurs between several persons
and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some
person is %illed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel
in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was between one distinct group and oneindividual. #onfusion may have occurred because of the police dispersal of the rallyists,
but this confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to 9aria rosa Street. (t
was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct group identified as loyalists
pic%ed on one defenseless individual and attac%ed him repeatedly, ta%ing turns in
inflicting punches, %ic%s and blows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous
quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident.
As the lower courts found, the victimOs assailantOs were numerous by as much as
fifty in number and were armed with stones with which they hit the victim. They too%
advantage of their superior strength and e=cessive force and frustrated any attempt bySalcedo to escape and free himself. Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored his
pleas until he finally lost unconsciousness. The deliberate and prolonged use of
superior strength on a defenseless victim qualifies the %illing of murder.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
23/26
DADO vs. POP!%92 SCRA "6
FACTS: The present case is a petition for review under !ule E4 of the !ules of #ourt
assailing the decision of the #ourt of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the!egional Trial #ourt of Judarat finding the -eronimo /ado and +rancisco *raso guiltyof the crime of homicide. The information charged both /ado and *raso with murderallegedly committed by said the accused, armed with firearms, with intent to %ill, withevident premeditation and treachery, and shot Silvestre 3alinas thereby inflictinggunshot wounds upon the latter which caused his instant death.
The antecedent facts as narrated by prosecution witnesses Alfredo 3alinas and!ufo Alga were as follows$ n the night of 9ay 64, ""6, the *speranNa, SultanJudarat Police Station formed three teams to intercept some cattle rustlers. The Teamcomposed of the petitioner SPE -eronimo /ado and #A+-2 members +rancisco
*raso, Aflredo3alinas and !ufo Alga waited behind a large di%e. Alfredo 3alinas and!ufo Alga, who were both armed with 9E armalite rifles, were positioned between thepetitioner, who was armed with a caliber .E4 pistol, and accused +rancisco *raso, whowas carrying an 9I armalite rifle. At around $55 of that same evening, the team sawsomebody approaching at a distance of 45 meters. When he was about 4 meters awayfrom the team, Alfredo 3alinas noticed that +rancisco *raso was ma%ing somemovements. 3alinas told *raso to wait, but before 3alinas could beam his flashlight,*raso fired his 9I armalite rifle at the approaching man. (mmediately thereafter,petitioner fired a single shot from his .E4 caliber pistol. The victim turned out to beSilvestre K3utsoyL 3alinas, the nephew of Alfredo 3alinas. *raso embraced Alfredo3alinas to show his repentance for his deed.
ISSU: Whether accused is guilty of homicide instead of illegal discharge of firearmonly.
RU!ING: (n convicting the petitioner, both the trial court and the #ourt of Appeals foundthat conspiracy attended the commission of the crime. The #ourt of Appeals ruled thatpetitioner /ado and accused *raso conspired in %illing the deceased, thus, it is nolonger necessary to establish who caused the fatal wound in as much as conspiracyma%es the act of one conspirator the act of all. Although the agreement need not bedirectly proven, circumstantial evidence of such agreement must nonetheless beconvincingly shown. (n the case at bar, petitioner and accused *rasoDs seemingly
concerted and almost simultaneous acts were more of a spontaneous reaction ratherthan the result of a common plan to %ill the victim. *vidently, the prosecution failed toprove that the metallic fragments found in the fatal wound of the victim were particles ofa .E4 caliber bullet that emanated from the .E4 caliber pistol fired by petitioner. )ence,the Supreme #ourt set aside the decision of the #ourt of Appeals affirming theconviction of petitioner for the crime of homicide and acquitted the petitioner of thecrime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. A new decision was entered findingpetitioner -eronimo /ado guilty of the crime of illegal discharge of firearm and
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
24/26
sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of si= >I months of arresto mayor, asminimum, to two >6 years and eleven > months of prision correccional, as ma=imum.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
25/26
POP! vs. SA!UFRANIA%$9 SCRA 22"
FACTS: +ilomeno Salufrania by bo=ing and strangling 9A!#(AA A32C8
SAB2+!A(A, his lawfully wedded wife and who was at the time months on the family
way, caused upon her in'uries resulting in her instantaneous death and the death of the
child who was still in its maternal womb. Thus +ilomeno was charged with the comple=
crime of parricide with intentional abortion committed. The lower court found +ilomeno
guilty as charged and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. )ence, the
automatic review of the case by the Supreme #ourt. +ilomeno alleges that the trial court
erred in finding him guilty of the comple= crime of parricide with intentional abortion, as
there is no evidence to show that he had the intention to cause an abortion.
ISSU: Whether or not the conviction of the accused for the comple= crime of parricidewith intentional abortion is proper?
RU!ING: o. +ilomeno Salufrania should not be held guilty of the comple= crime of
parricide with intentional abortion but of the comple= crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion.
The elements of 2nintentional Abortion are as follows$
. That there is a pregnant woman.
6. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion.;. That the violence is intentionally e=erted.
E. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been
e=pelled there from.
(t has been clearly established >a that 9arciana Abuyo was seven >7 to eight >
months pregnant when she was %illed@ >b that violence was voluntarily e=erted upon
her by her husband +ilomeno@ and >c that, as a result of said violence, 9arciana Abuyo
died together with the fetus in her womb. The abortion was caused by the same
violence that caused the death of the wife, 9arciana Abuyo, such violence beingvoluntarily e=erted by +ilomeno upon her. )owever, the intent to cause the abortion has
not been sufficiently established. 9ere bo=ing on the stomach, ta%en together with the
immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient proof to show intent to
cause an abortion. (n fact, +ilomeno must have merely intended to %ill his wife but not
necessarily to cause an abortion.
-
7/24/2019 Digests crim 2
26/26
POP! vs. GNO3S61 P&I!. %$2
FACTS:#rispin -enoves and deceased Soledad !ivera were laborers in ad'oining
cane fields. !ivera claimed that the yo%e of the plow which the accused was repairing
belonged to her and tried to ta%e it by force. The accused struc% her with his fist causing
her to fall to the ground. She got up and returned to the quarrel where she received
another fist blow on the left chee% causing her to fall again to the ground. (mmediately
after the incident, the deceased proceeded to the municipal building, she complained to
the chief of police of pain in the abdomen as she was pregnant at the time. +or a few
days, the deceased suffered from hemorrhage and pain which resulted in the painful
and difficult premature delivery of one of the twin babies that she way carrying, but the
other baby could be delivered. 3oth babies were dead.-enoves was convicted in the
#ourt of +irst (nstance of ccidental egros of the comple= crime of homicide withabortion. An appeal was made by the accused.
ISSU:Should the accused be held guilty for the death of the victim and her unborn
child?
RU!ING: (t is generally %nown that a fall is liable to cause premature delivery, and the
evidence shows a complete sequel of events from the assault to her death. The
accused must be held responsible for the natural consequences of his act. )owever, the
mitigating circumstances of lac% of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that inflicted
and provocation are present, as the offended party by force induced the accused to useforce on his part. The abortion in this case is unintentional abortion denounced by
Article 647 of the !evised Penal #ode. n the whole case, the period of confinement is
fi=ed at twelve years and one day to fourteen years, eight months and one day of
reclusion temporal and the indemnity is fi=ed at P, 555.