CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2ND MEEETING CASES

38. P VS At about 2:30 p.m. of September 26, 1998, Vincent Jorojoro, an eleven-year Issues:
FALLORINA old minor and the third child of Vicente and Felicisima Jorojoro, residing at
Sitio Militar, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Project 8, Quezon City, asked permission (a) Whether the appellant is exempted from criminal liability?
from his mother Felicisima if he could play outside. She agreed. Together
with his playmate Whilcon Buddha Rodriguez, Vincent played with his kite (b) Whether the appellant can offset an aggravating circumstance by taking advantage of his public
on top of the roof of an abandoned carinderia beside the road. position from a mitigating circumstance of his voluntary surrender?

Beside the carinderia was a basketball court, where a fourteen-year old Held:
witness Ricardo Salvo and his three friends, were playing basketball.
Ricardo heard the familiar sound of a motorcycle coming from the main road The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) cites that the basis for exemption from a criminal liability under
across the basketball court. Cognizant to Ricardo of the appellant, PO3 Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is the complete absence of intent and
Ferdinand Fallorina, a Philippine National Police (PNP) officer, detailed in negligence on the part of the accused. For the accused to be guilty for a felony, it must be committed
the Traffic Management Group (TMG), knew that he abhorred kids playing either with criminal intent or with fault or negligence.
on the roof, since one of his friends was previously been scolded by the
appellant before. Thusly, the elements of exempting circumstances are (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with
due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without any fault or intention of
Ricardo called on Vincent and Whilcon to come down from the roof. When causing it.
PO3 Fallorina saw them, the former stopped his motorcycle, he shouted
and badmouthed at them. After hearing the shouts of the appellant, Whilcon In the case at bar, the Court a quo erred in inequitably appreciating exculpatory and inculpatory facts
rushed to jump off from the roof while Vincent was lying on his stomach on and circumstances which should have been considered in favor of the accused. The court also failed to
the roof flying his kite. When he heard the appellants shouts, Vincent stood appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the accused since it was only
up and looked at the latter. As soon as Vincent turned his back, ready to after three days that the appellant gave himself up and surrendered his service firearm. And lastly, the
get down from the roof, suddenly, the appellant pointed the .45 caliber pistol court considered the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his position by the accused.
towards the direction of Vincent and fired a shot. Vincent fell from the roof,
lying prostrate near the canal beside the abandoned carinderia and the On January 19, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the appellant-accused of murder,
basketball court. qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of public position. The trial court did not appreciate in
favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender.
The appellant approached Vincent and carried the latters hapless body in
a waiting tricycle and brought him to the Quezon City General Hospital. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, found the accused PO3 Ferdinand Fallorina y
Vincent was pronounced dead on arrival caused by a single gunshot wound Fernando GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder defined and penalized by Article
in the head. 248 of the RPC, as amended by the Republic Act No. 7659, and in view of the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage by the accused of his public position (par. 1, Art. 14,
RPC). Hence, the accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of late Vincent Jorojoro, Jr. the
amounts of actual damages of P49,174.00 (paid for funeral services); P50,000.00 for moral damages;
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as death indemnity. The court a quo sentenced
the appellant to suffer the Death Penalty.
39.