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 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