Criminal Law- People of the R.P. vs. Pugay

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ART. 3(2) & 8(2) OF THE R.P.C.

"A Conspiracy exists when two or more people come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."

"A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment."


Case of People of the R.P. vs. Pugay
No. L-74324 17November1988

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder of Bayani Miranda and sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prison mayor) as mimimum to 20 years (prison temporal) as maximum and for samson to be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to sleep together. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived (they were drunk), and they started making fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took a can of gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. They were arrested the same night and barely a few hours after the incident gave their written statements.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? If not what are the criminal responsibilities of the accused?

There is no:
CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.
Since there was no animosity between miranda and the accused, and add to the that that the meeting at the scene of the incident was purely coincidental, and the main intent of the accused is to make fun of miranda.
Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against miranda is individual NOT collective and each of them is liable only for the act that was committed by him.

**Conspiracy may be implied from concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim.

Criminal Responsibilities:
PUGAY: Having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act committed by his companions who at the same time were making fun of the deceased. - GUILTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE

SAMSON:Since there are NO sufficient evidence that appears in the record establishing qualifying circumstances (treachery, conspiracy). And granted the mitigating circumstance that he never INTENDED to commit so grave a wrong. - GUILTY OF HOMICIDE

HELD:
JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. JUDGEMENT FOR GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR MURDER WAS LOWERED TO THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People of the Philippine Islands vs. Diokno

THIS CASE IS REGARDING ARTICLE 13 PAR(S) (5,6, & 7)

"Those who act with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent"

Case of People of the Philippine Islands vs. Diokno
G.R.No. L- 45100 26October1936

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Epifanio and Roman Diokno appealed the decision of the C.F.I of Laguna. On 04 January 1935, Salome Diokno, to whom Yu Hiong was engaged for about a year, invited the latter to go with her. Yu Hiong accepted the invitation but he told Salome that her father was angry with him. On 05- 06 January 1935 Roman Diokno, telegraphed his father informing him that his sister has eloped w/ the Chinaman. On 07 January 1935 they chanced upon the Chinaman at the house of Antonio Layco, upon confrontation, the Chinaman implored pardon, and was then stabbed by the accused Roman stabbed him at the back and later on the left side, and Epifanio stabbed him once, upon falling on the landing of the stairs the Chinaman was then stabbed repeatedly.
The municipal police was alerted to the incident and was able to catch Epifanio in the crime scene; he admitted that he stabbed the victim. While Roman was then accosted after 3 days, the wounds that were inflicted on the Chinaman were mortal which then caused the death of the victim.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AS BASED ON ART 13 PAR(s) 5, 6 & 7?

- YES. With regard to art 13 par 5, because although the elopement took place on January 4, 1935, and the aggression on the 7th, the offense did not cease while and her marriage to the deceased unlegalized. Therefore, there was no interruption from the time the offense was committed to the vindication of it. That the accused belongs to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the home.
- YES. With regard to art 13 par 6, because the fact, that the accused The fact that the accused saw the victim run upstairs when he became aware of their presence, as if he refused to deal with them after having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion which blinded them and led them to commit the crime with which they are charged
- Yes. With regard to art 13 par 7, it can be granted to Epifanio Diokno, after surrendering immediately.

HELD:

PETITIONERS ARE FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE AND GRANTING 3 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR EPIFANIO AND 2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ROMAN, W/ NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THUS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A PENALTY A DEGREE LOWER THAN WHAT IS PRESCRIBED BY LAW PRISION MAYOR IN THIS CASE (8 YEARS TO 1 DAY)
I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Morales

THIS IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 12 PAR(S) 5 &6 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

"The accused must not have opportunity for escape of self-defense"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Morales
G.R.No. 148518 15April2004

FACTS OF THE CASE:

That on or about the 9th day of November, 1994, in the municipality of Bacolor, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, abduct and kidnap Jefferson C. Tan, Joanna C. Tan, Jessie Anthony C. Tan, Malou Ocampo and Cesar Quiroz, while the latter were on board a L-300 van with Plate No. CKW-785 at San Vicente, Bacolor, Pampanga, for the purpose of extorting ransom money from the parents of the said victims with threat to kill the said victims if their parents failed to deliver the ransom money, that said victims were brought and detained in Bataan until the father of victims, Feliciano Tan, paid and delivered to the aforesaid accused the amount of P92,000.00.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

For this particular case, since 2 appellants are involved, the digest would only look into the issue of Fernando Morales;

- CAN FERNANDO MORALES BE GRANTED THE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE AND/OR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY

- IF CONSPIRACY WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

- No. Since according to the ruling in the case of People v. Del Rosario. Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom. In Del Rosario, however, we held that for such defense to prosper the duress, force, fear intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough
- By not availing of the chance to escape (since the other accused were waiting for them at the distance of 1 kilometer) their allegation of fear or duress becomes untenable, for it to apply: it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat.
- The fear (threats against family members), were not of imminence as to prevent any chance of escape, and that this fear they allegedly suffered does not suffice to grant them the exempting circumstance.
- Yes. The acts done by the appellants (was involved in the initial abduction, feeding/guarding the children while they are w/ them, instructing the father to go to Gumi for the ransom) clearly shows that there was close coordination, indicating a common purpose or design
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.
- It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.

HELD:

DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM AND SENTENCING EACH TO DEATH IS AFFIRMED

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- Guevarra vs. Almodovar

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 12 (3) OF THE R.P.C.

"Intent distinguished from discernment"

Case of People of the Guevarra vs. Almodovar
G.R.No. 75256 26January1989

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, petitioned the court for a special civil action for certiorari against the Hon. Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the city court of Legaspi. The petitioner, then 11 years old was target shooting with his best friend Teodoro Amine, Jr. and three other children in the backyard in the morning of 29October1984. Unfortunately, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on the left collar bone, w/c then caused his death.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Can an 11- year old boy be charged w/ the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence?

- Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means: a determination to do certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent. Discernment means: the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
- While they (intent and discernment) are products of mental processes w/in a person; intent refers to the desired of one’s act (active) while discernment refers to the moral significance that a person ascribes to an act (passive)
- Minors 9yrs to 15yrs are presumed to be without criminal capacity; but this presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they) acted w/ discernment
- Discernment is embraced w/in the concept of intelligence w/c is one of the elements of a culpable felony, thus it is important that a minor 9yrs to below 15 yrs of age to have acted w/ discernment to show that he acted w/ intelligence thus being liable for the offense under Art 365 of the R.PC

HELD:
PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TRO EFFECTIVE 17SEPTEMBER1986 IS LIFTED. LET IT BE REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS. NO COSTS.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Oriente

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 11 Par. 1 and ARTICLE 13 Par(s): 3 and 4 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

"FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY (11")
"CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY (13)"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Oriente
G.R.No. 155094 30January2007

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case is about Manuel Oriente’s appeal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. The appellant w/ other persons, attacked and assaulted Romulo Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe on different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death (as confirmed by the medico- legal). In the case there was one witness for the prosecution; Arnel Tanael.
When the case was tried at the C.A. the court (C.A.) found that the R.T.C erred in finding two mitigating circumstances were present, namely, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party, so the court modified the penalty imposed by the R.T.C.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
[in this particular case there are a number of issues, but the most compelling is the 2nd and 4th issues]

DID THE C.A. AND THE R.T.C ERR IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM, AND THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT TO PREVENT THE SAME WAS REASONABLE AND FALLS UNDER THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OR SELF-DEFENSE


- No. Since when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing is legally justified. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The appellant cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.
- All three requirements for self- defense must concur; but unlawful aggression is condition sine qua non.
- The fact that the deceased was not able to make use of his gun after being hit in the forehead by the weapon of the appellant as alleged by the defense makes their claim of self-defense unusual
- Injuries sustained by the deceased were extensive
- Importantly, the appellant failed to establish the existence of the gun, that was alleged to have constituted the “unlawful aggression”

CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE, DUE TO THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS LACK OF INTENT IN THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE DECEASED?

- Modification of the penalties was based on the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
- The claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated because the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim
- Provocation in this case cannot be appreciated as well since provocation is deemed sufficient if it is adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, w/c must be proportionate in gravity
- The fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by itself the sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party as contemplated by law. Also, appellant failed to establish by competent evidence that the deceased had a gun and used it to threaten petitioner.

HELD:
PETITION DENIED. DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF C.A. ARE AFFIRMED W/ MODIFICATIONS, the C.A. erred in imposing 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. In the computation of the maximum term, the law prescribes that the attending circumstances should be considered. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the penalty that should be imposed is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by law, that is, reclusion temporal in its medium period, or, anywhere between fourteen years, eight months and one day to seventeen years and four months
I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Valledor

This case is with regard to ART 12 par 1

"An insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted during a lucid interval"


Case of People of the R.P. vs. Valledor
G.R.No. 129291 03July2002

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case is about Enrico Valledor’s appeal of his conviction for the crime of consummated, frustrated and attempted murder. Last 06 March 1991, the appellant attacked Roger Cabiguen (stabbed on the forearm), Elza Rodriguez (stabbed on the chest), Ricardo Maglalang (was inflicted w/ physical injuries on different parts of the body) There were two other people inside the room (they were not harmed by the appellant). Roger and Ricardo were both wounded, while Elza died from the stab wound. After his arrest, accused-appellant was intermittently confined at the National Center for Mental Health. Thus, he was arraigned only on February 19, 1993 wherein he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the cases were archived until November 15, 1994, when accused-appellant was declared mentally fit to withstand trial. This time, accused-appellant admitted commission of the crimes charged but invoked the exempting circumstance of insanity.

The appellant’s plea of insanity was anchored on the following instances:
1.) On January 1990 the Mother of the appellant noticed that he is behaving abnormally. The mother then brought the appellant to Dr. de Guzman, a medical practitioner. She then disclosed to the doctor that insanity runs in the family
2.) Dr. de Guzman then diagnosed the appellant as suffering from “psychosis w/ schizophrenia” and prescribed the appellant w/ an anti-depressant known as thoracin which kept the appellant sane for a period of 2 months
3.) On 04 March 1991, the appellant’s mother noticed that he is acting strangely, so she left to buy Thoracin, but when she returned the appellant is nowhere to be found.
4.) On 06 March 1991 (date of commission of crime) he was seen swimming across the river Barangay Captain and Councilman took the appellant out of the water inside the boat, accused-appellant kept on crying and uttering words to the effect that his family will be killed. Suspecting that appellant was mentally ill, the Barangay Captain, asked the Councilman to accompany accused-appellant to Puerto Princesa City. Sibunga acceded and thereafter took a jeepney with appellant, while on the jeepney the appellant then jumped off the jeepney and boarded a tricycle.
5.) On 11 March 1991 he was interviewed by the City Health Officer I and was recommended to be committed to the NATIONAL MENTAL HOSPITAL
6.) While under the care of the hospital the medical findings for the appellant was that he was suffering from: Psychosis or Insanity classified under Schizophrenia

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Can Insanity as an exempting circumstance be granted to the accused?

No, since in considering insanity as a defense, it presumed that all persons to be of sound mind. Otherwise stated, the law presumes all acts to be voluntary, and it is improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously
- The acts made by the appellant shows that he does not have complete absence of the power to discern as shown by his stabbing of the two victims (roger and elza) while leaving the other two people in the room unharmed, also his action of fleeing from the scene after the incident indicated that he was aware of the wrong he committed.
- The actions performed by the appellant does not sufficiently prove his insanity at the time of commission of the crime: "A man may act crazy but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so."
- Although it can be argued that the appellant is suffering from mental illness what is decisive is his mental condition at the time of the perpetration of the offense. Failing to discharge the burden of proving that he was legally insane when he stabbed the victims, he should be held liable for his felonious acts.

HELD:

THE COURT FOUND THE ACCUSED GUILTY WITH MODIFICATIONS: HE IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER FOR THE KILLING OF ELZA RODRIGUEZ, AND ATTEMPTED MURDER FOR BOTH ROGER CABIGUEN AND ROGELIO MAGLALANG (FROM FRUSTRATED MURDER FOR INJURIES CAUSED TO MAGLALANG IT WAS REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED MURDER)


I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Ladonga

This Case is in reference to the application of Art 8 and 10 of the Revised Penal Code

"B.P. Blg 22- Bouncing Checks Law"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Ladonga
G.R. No. 141066 17February2005

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga seeks a review of the Decision, dated May 17, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20443, affirming the Decision dated August 24, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3 of Bohol, in Criminal Case Nos. 7068, 7069 and 7070 convicting her of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks Law.

The RTC, convicted both Evangeline Ladonga and her spouse Adronico, both are regular customers in the pawnshop business of Mr. Oculam in Tagbilaran City, Bohol; sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to dated July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post dated to dated July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason "CLOSED ACCOUNT"; when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against them.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

In this case Evangeline Ladonga is trying to contest her conviction on the grounds that she was not a party to the agreement and that she was not a signatory to the checks and that the decision of the Court of Appeals with regard to her being a co-conspirator is w/o merit.

 In determining if she is liable for the same crime it must be proven that there was conspiracy
 It was not proven by direct evidence even by the witness testimony that Evangeline Ladonga was merely present at the time of the issuance of the checks. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the criminal design.
 Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
 Criminal liability cannot be incurred based on general allegation of conspiracy. In criminal cases, moral certainty -- not mere possibility -- determines the guilt or the innocence of the accused. Even when the evidence for the defense is weak, the accused must be acquitted when the prosecution has not proven guilt with the requisite quantum of proof required in all criminal cases.

HELD:

The instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision, of the Court of Appeals convicting the petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga is ACQUITTED of the charges against her under B.P. Blg. 22 for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Opero

This is with regard to Article 4 par 1 and it also touches upon Art 8 (w/ regards to conspiracy)

"the crime is different from that which was intended"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Opero

No. L-48796 11JUNE1989

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Automatic review of the death sentence imposed on Roberto Opero for the crime of Robbery with homicide.

At about 04:00am  of April 27, 1978, Salvador Oliver and Demetrio Barcing both security guards assigned to the House International Hotel, in Ongpin street, Binondo, Manila checked room 314 of the said hotel and found Liew Soon Ping dead  while bound and gagged. Room 314 was ransacked and the personal belongings were thrown all around. After rushing back from Cebu, Dr. Hong the husband of the victim made an inventory of the things found missing in his residence, valued at 30,221 pesos.

The Samar P.C. arrested the suspects in the case, and turned them over to Sgt. Yanguiling in manila. During the autopsy of the body of the victim, it was found out that the cause of death was asphyxiation by suffocation.

** When a homicide results from a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are all guilty of Robbery with homicide, unless proof is presented that the accused tried to prevent the killing.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is Roberto Opero and others liable for the death of the victim, when the intent was for robbery only?

-appellant advanced the theory that the intent was to rob the victim and not to kill her, if the intent was to kill, then he could have easily done so, with the knife that he had.

-There is no basis in law or in jurisprudence for the appellant's assertion. It was repeatedly held that when direct and intimate connection exists between robbery and the killing, regardless of the two which precedes the other, or whether they are committed at the same time, the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

-Even if the intent was not for the victim to be killed, what is important and decisive is that death results by reason or on occasion of the robbery

-needs to consider as well that there are two aggravating circumstances of superior strength and dwelling and that there is ONLY one mitigating circumstance of not having intended to kill the victim.

HELD:

-JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED APPELANT OPERO IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Delim

This case is with regard to Art 8 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code

"the act of one is the act of all"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Delim

G.R. No. 142773 28January2003

FACTS OF THE CASE:

It is due to the automatic review of the decision of the RTC Branch 46 (Urdaneta City) finding the appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them to death for the murder of Modesto Bantas.

Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellants and victim are “related” for modesto is an adopted son of their father. On January 23,1999 Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged into the house and poked a gun at modesto and herded him outside the house. Leon and Manuel Delim both armed stayed put and made sure that randy and rita stayed put.

Modesto's lifeless body was then found on January 25, 1999. Marlon, Ronald, and Leon used denial and alibi as their evidence against the charge.

*alibis are the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime?

Yes there is:

CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.

appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were synchronized and executed with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill Modesto

There is no:

TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove:

a. employment of means of execution which gives the person no opportunity

to defend himself

b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted

in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how Modesto was assaulted and killed and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be proven since it cannot be presumed that modesto was defenseless during the time that he was being attacked and shot at by the appellants.

Sheer numbers by the appellants when they attacked modesto does not constitute proof that the three took advantage of their numerical superiority and their handguns when Modesto was shot and stabbed.

HELD:

APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE FELONY OF HOMICIDE (THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS WERE MODIFIED TO LOWER THE CRIME FROM MURDER TO HOMICIDE)

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Castromero

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 4 Par. 1 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
"crime is different from that which was intended"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Castromero

G.R.No. 118992 09October1997

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The accused Celerino Castromero was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the   crime of Rape with Serious Physical Injuries sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. That on the February 26, 1993 at about 2am in the province of batangas philippines,the accused armed with a balisong wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge w/ the offended party Josephine Baon against her will and consent and as a consequence thereof she suffered serious physical injuries, by jumping down through the 2^nd floor window of her house.

Castromero and Baon are relatives. Josephine Baon's husband is the second-cousin of Castromero. They were neighbors wherein their houses are located a mere 50 meters apart. During the incident Castromero's penis due to their movement sideways was able to touch Baon's private parts. When Baon, noticed that Castromero was no longer holding the knife she tried to escape by pushing him off and jumping through the 2^nd flr window. Upon falling down she yelled for help wherein her inlaws came out to help her and bring her to the hospital, as she was experiencing intense pain.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Was Rape committed in this case?

-         In determining if rape was consummated or merely attempted, we observe that there was NO complete of perfect penetration of the complainant's organ.

-         To consummate rape, perfect or complete penetration of the complainant's private organ is NOT essential. Even the slightest or mere touching of the lips of the female organ, or labia of the pudendum, is sufficient.

-         In people vs. Dela Pena (233 SCRA 573) held that the mere touching of the external genitalia of the penis capable of consummating a sexual act constitutes carnal knowledge.

-         For this case Rape was consummated, because sexual assault was perpetrated by force and intimidation

HELD:

JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED APPELANT CASTROMERO IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David