Você está na página 1de 8

Group 2 Who was the victim in this case? Was the victim considered a person in authority in this case?

What is contempt of or insult to a public authority? Is it required that the person in authority identifies himself and the position he is occupying to the accused? Is a police chief of a town a person in authority? Why? In assault against a person in authority, can the aggravating circumstance of rank still be appreciated as aggravating? People vs. Rodil 109 SCRA 308 [L-35156] (Nov. 20, 1981) FACTS: Accused Floro Rodil was charged under an Information that states that on April 24, 1971, with the use of a bladed dagger, attacked and stabbed to death Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant Guillermo Masana in Indang, Cavite. The Information also alleges that Masana was in the performance of his official duties when the accused attacked him. Masana, the deceased, together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Philippine Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix Mojica of Indang, Cavite, was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the Indang market. While inside, they saw accused outside through the glass window of the restaurant. Rodil was blowing his whistle. His attention drawn by what Rodil was doing, Masana, dressed in civilian clothes, accompanied by Fidel, and went out of the restaurant. He introduced himself as a PC officer, and asked Rodil whether the gun tucked on his waist had a license. Instead of answering the question, Rodil moved a step backward and tried to draw his gun. Fidel immediately grabbed Rodils gun and gave it to Masana. The three went inside the restaurant. Masana and Rodil occupied a separate table. Masana placed the gun on the table, pulled out a piece of paper and wrote a receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked Rodil to countersign it, but he refused. Rodil even asked Masana to return the gun to him, and of course Masana did not grant his plea. As Masana was about to stand up, Rodil pulled out a double-bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times, on the chest and the stomach which led to his death. Indang Chief of Police Primo Panaligan was also inside the restaurant taking his lunch and helped in wresting the dagger from Rodil. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the specific circumstance of contempt of, or insult to public authority can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance 2. Whether or not the specific circumstance of insult or disregard of rank can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance RULING: [1] YES. In the case at bar, the aggravating circumstance of, or insult to, public authority under paragraph 2, Article 14 of the RPC can be appreciated. Evidence of prosecution clearly established that Indang Chief of Police Primo Panaligan was present in the restaurant as he was having lunch there too when the incident happened, which belies Rodils allegations that he went to the municipal police station and reported the incident as self-defense to the Chief. As a matter of fact, the chief of police was the one who embraced or grabbed Rodil from behind, wrested the dagger from him and subsequently brought him to the Indang municipal building. The chief of police should be considered a public authority or a person in authority for he is vested with jurisdiction and authority to maintain peace and order and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the law and municipal ordinances. [2] YES. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated because the victim identified himself as a PC officer to Rodil who was merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and was therefore inferior both in rank and social status to the victim. The difference in official and social status between a PC lieutenant and a mere member of an anti-smuggling unit is patent. If Rodil was charged with the complex crime of murder with assault against an agent of a person in authority and not merely murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank may not be appreciated because that circumstance will be absorbed into the charge of assault against an agent of a person in authority. But in the case at bar, the Information charges Rodil with murder only. Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank may be appreciated.

Group 2 Given the circumstances in this case, where the crime committed was in an unfinished construction 200 meters from the victims dwelling, should the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? Why or why not? People vs. De La Torre 373 SCRA 104, [G.R. No. 98431] (Jan. 15, 2002) FACTS: The accused was charged of rape committed against the victim who was his coworker at the La Fiesta Farm. In the evening of November 5, 1989, while the victim was cooking at the kitchen of the La Fiesta Farm with her five (5) children, the accused armed with a knife and a bolo, suddenly appeared and dragged her outside, poking the knife and the bolo at her. He brought her towards a house under construction about 200 meters away where he consummated his dastardly acts. ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated RULING: It appears from the records that the kitchen at the La Fiesta Farm where the victim was dragged by appellant is her "dwelling," albeit the same does not belong to her. The "dwelling" contemplated in Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code does not necessarily mean that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed spacer, the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect. The fact that the crime was consummated in the nearby house is also immaterial. The victim was forcibly taken by appellant from her dwelling house (kitchen) and then raped her. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house although the offense was not completed therein.

Group 2 Was nighttime appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case? What are the conditions for nighttime to be appreciated? People vs. Avendano, 396 SCRA 3098, [G.R. No. 137407] (Jan. 28, 2003) FACTS: On the night of July 29, 1997, the accused, Willy killed Remedios and Melvin (mother and son) using a jungle knife. The lone witness is Jeffre, who is the son of the victim (Remedios) and the brother of the victim (Melvin). He heard his mother shouted for help then his brother begged for mercy. When he heard that there was a turmoil, he hid himself where the pillows are. The witness (Jeffre) was not able to see the accused but he identified him with the sound of his cough. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime being committed at night is an aggravating circumstance? RULING: As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating only when (1) it was especially sought by the offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from identification or capture. In this case, the prosecution did not adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately sought the cover of the night to commit the offense. The mere fact that the killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain nocturnity for, by, and of itself. Aggravating circumstances must be established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be resolved in favor of appellant.

Group 2 Was nighttime appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case? What are the conditions for nighttime to be appreciated? People vs. Avendano, 396 SCRA 3098, [G.R. No. 137407] (Jan. 28, 2003) FACTS: On the night of July 29, 1997, the accused, Willy killed Remedios and Melvin (mother and son) using a jungle knife. The lone witness is Jeffre, who is the son of the victim (Remedios) and the brother of the victim (Melvin). He heard his mother shouted for help then his brother begged for mercy. When he heard that there was a turmoil, he hid himself where the pillows are. The witness (Jeffre) was not able to see the accused but he identified him with the sound of his cough. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime being committed at night is an aggravating circumstance? RULING: As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating only when (1) it was especially sought by the offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from identification or capture. In this case, the prosecution did not adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately sought the cover of the night to commit the offense. The mere fact that the killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain nocturnity for, by, and of itself. Aggravating circumstances must be established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be resolved in favor of appellant.

Group 2 What crime was committed in this case? What crime was the accused previously convicted? When? What was the penalty? What is habituality? What are its requisites? People vs. Cajara, 341 SCRA 192 [G.R. No. 122498] (Sept. 27, 2000) FACTS: Elmidio Cajara aka elming was convicted of raping the maternal sister of his common-law wife which is Marita Cajote a 16-year old. It was alleged that at about two oclock the following morning Marita was awakened by the weight of accused who was already on top of her. The accused who was holding a bolo told her to keep quiet or he would kill her. He then placed his bolo aside and held Maritas hands with his right hand. With his left hand accused lowered Maritas pants as well as her panty down to her knees. Marita shouted for help but her sister Meling just wrapped her head with their mosquito net and pretended to be asleep. Marita struggled continuously against the advances of the accused but he was much stronger, while she was getting weak. The accused first inserted his fingers into Maritas private part and later succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. Meling then pulled Elming away from Marita and hit Elming in the eye. Elming boxed Meling on the mouth and kicked her when she fell on the floor. Elming went back to Marita and continued with his beastly acts. By this time, Marita was already too weak to resist. Elming inserted his fingers first and then his penis into her private organ. The older of the two (2)children of Meling cried. Meling who was holding her youngest child helplessly watched the accused rape her younger sister. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Qualified Rape? RULING: The records show that the crime was aggravated by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of The Revised Penal Code, the accused having been convicted of frustrated murder in 1975 and of homicide, frustrated homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegal possession of firearms and murder sometime in 1989 where his sentences were later commuted to imprisonment for 23 years and a fine of P200,000.00. He was granted conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines on 8 November 1991.[19] Reiteracion or habituality under Art. 14, par. 10, herein cited, is present when the accused has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense or for two or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty. As already discussed, herein accused can be convicted only of simple rape and the imposable penalty therefor is reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime, such as in the instant case. We note that the trial court did not award any civil indemnity. Pursuant to current jurisprudence and without need of further proof, we award the victim Marita Cajote an indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00. In People v. Prades[20] the Court resolved that moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding in such amount as the Court may deem just without the need for pleading or proof of the basis therefor. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court convicting the accused ELMEDIO CAJARA alias Elming of Qualified Rape is MODIFIED to the effect that he is convicted instead only of Simple Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the victim Marita B. Cajote civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of another P50,000.00. Costs de oficio.

Group 2 What was the crime committed in this case? Was there evident premeditation? Why or why not? What are the elements of evident premeditation? Was treachery present in this case? What is the essence of treachery to be aggravating and qualifying? People vs. Canete, 410 SCRA 544 [G.R. No. 138366] (Sept. 11, 2003) FACTS: In Sitio Canagahan, Barangay Tabla, Liloan, Cebu, Leonaldo Tumayao, Joel Quimod and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after attending a wedding party. Tumayao was walking ahead of Tundag and Quimod. As they passed by the houses of the accused, Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots. Quimod and Tundag immediately looked in the direction where the bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw Ruben, Alfredo, Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad shooting at Tumayao who slumped to the ground. Apparently not satisfied, all the accused approached the fallen Tumayao and continued shooting him. On order of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot Tumayao in the head. Quimod, who was ten meters behind the victim, ran and hid behind the bushes. As soon as the accused left, Quimod went home and narrated the incident to Tumayaos wife. On the other hand, Tundag, who was behind Tumayao, saw Ruben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag attempted to come to the aid of Tumayao but the latter shouted at him to flee. Thus, he ran back to the wedding party while hearing more gunshots. At the wedding party, Tundag informed the people about the ambush. Thereafter, he went back to the crime scene where he saw Tumayaos lifeless body on the road. ISSUE: Whether or not the above-named accused, with intent to kill, conspiring, and confederating by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Leonaldo Tanjay Tumayao which resulted in the death of the victim? RULING: The court ruled that Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design. Gleaned from the records is the following chain of events which proved that there was a community of design among the appellants: (1) Appellants positioned themselves strategically before ambushing Tumayao; (2) Alfredo fired at Tumayao although there was no certainty that he hit the victim; (3) Ruben shot and hit the victim with his shotgun; (4) Appellants fired their guns successively at Tumayao; (5) Appellants, still holding their firearms, surrounded Tumayao after he slumped to the ground; (6) Sotero was holding a pistol and he ordered Alfredo to deliver the coup de grace to the victim; (7) Alfredo obeyed Soteros order by shooting Tumayao one last time; (8) Alfredo and Ruben escaped from the scene of the crime; (9) Sotero, Sergio and Trinidad hid inside the latters house away from the crime scene until they were ordered by the police to come out and surrender.Therefore, even presuming for the sake of argument that the wounds inflicted on Tumayao were the result of a single shot from a shotgun, appellants presence and participation nonetheless made possible the execution of the crime. Accordingly, the appellants should all be held liable for the death of Tumayao for, in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. We likewise agree that treachery attended the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means or methods in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. In this case, the events narrated by the eyewitnesses point to the fact that Tumayao could

not have been aware that he would be attacked by appellants. There was no opportunity for Tumayao to defend himself as appellants, suddenly and without any provocation, fired their guns at him, one after the other. However, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. There was no proof that the appellants deliberately planned to liquidate the victim. On the contrary, the killing of the victim was the immediate impulsive reaction of appellants to Tumayaos act of punching Ruben. Moreover, the time that elapsed between the punching incident and the commission of the crime was not sufficient for Ruben and the rest of the appellants to reflect upon the consequences of their intended act. The elements of evident premeditation, namely: (1) the time when the offender appeared determined to commit the crime; (2) the act evidently indicating that the offender clung to his determination, and ( (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof during which the offender was able to reflect on the consequences of his act, were wanting in this case. Appellants Trinidad Caete and Alfredo Caete are hereby found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Group 2 What crime was committed and what were the aggravating circumstances present? People vs. Guerrero, 389 SCRA 537 [G.R. No. 132892] (Sept. 19, 2002) FACTS: Orlando Guerrero, Jr., also known as Pablo, together with his father Orlando Guerrero, Sr., nicknamed Dino, was accused of murder. The accused conspired, confederated and mutually helped one another, with deliberate intent to kill and with evident premeditation n and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and without justifiable cause, attack, assault, club, beheaded and cut off the penis of the victim Ernesto Ocampo, which caused his death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of his lawful heirs.Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. Orlando interposed self-defense while his father, Dino, denied any complicity in the killing. According to the the witness, Jacalne, he was informed that one Dino Guerrero was inside the house nearby. Dino Guerrero came out with his hands extended forward. SPO1 Emilio Taracatac immediately frisked and handcuffed him. Before Dino was handcuffed, according to the witness, he said that it was his son who had killed the victim. Thereafter, Dino was brought to the police station for custodial investigation. Further, Jacalne testified that appellant Orlando Guerrero, Jr., was not at the scene of the crime during their investigation. But upon their return to the police station, appellant was already there.[11 Appellant admitted killing the victim, according to Jacalne, by clubbing the victim first with the wooden stick, and then cutting his head and his penis with a knife. Another withness, Ireneo Acierto, appellants brother-in-law, testified that while he was resting in his house at past 11:30 in the morning of July 7, 1997, he heard someone screaming. When he looked out from his window, he saw thatthe person screaming was his sister-in-law, Ana. He went out of the house and went near the porch of the Guerreros, where he saw Ernesto Ocampos head about to be severed by appellant. When the head was cut off, appellant placed the same on the right side of the victims trunk. After that, appellant cut off Ernestos penis. Ireneo noticed that while the head was being severed, the victim was lying down on the floor, but not moving. Ireneo then told appellant, That is enough, bayaw . Stop it. According to the witness, his wife Ana was also saying, That is enough, Manong . Appellant angrily turned to Ireneo, telling him not to interfere or else he might also be implicated. Ireneo hurriedly went away after that. Ireneo did not see his father-in-law, Dino, at the time of the incident and did not know where Dino was. The trial court convicted Orlando Guerrero, Jr. of murder while his father Dino was acquitted. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of cruelty and/or outraging and scoffing the corpse in order to classify the killing as murder despite failure of the prosecution to allege the same in the information RULING: The information alleges the qualifying circumstances of (1) treachery and(2) evident premeditation. It also states that there was cruelty in the perpetration of the crime, where there was deliberate and inhuman suffering of the victim and the offender had scoffed at the victims corpse. On treachery and evident premeditation, the trial court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the requirements of the law. We hold that in the present case, the trial court did not err when it found neither treachery nor evident premeditation. However, the trial court found there was cruelty as well as outraging or scoffing at the corpse, thus, qualifying the crime to murder.

Você também pode gostar