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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


7/26

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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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$


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.


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


16/26

the fatal shots themselves, their collective action showed a common intent to commit

the criminal acts.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.

Digests crim 2

Documents

Transcript of Digests crim 2