Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Untitled

Untitled

Ratings: (0)|Views: 275 |Likes:
Published by lancekim21
Criminal law Digest
Criminal law Digest

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: lancekim21 on Aug 06, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/06/2014

pdf

text

original

 
People vs. RabanalFacts:Sometime in August of 1996, Bonnie Rabanal, a security guard of McDonalds was approached by Rudy Pascua, who was armed and intoxicated suddenly kicked the podium that fell on him. Furthermore, the said Rudy Pascua was collecting P100 but Rabanal refused to give in. Pascua demanded that Rabanal should surrender his firearm. While Pascua was reaching for the firearm of Rabanal, the latter pushedthe former and grabbed his gun. At that very moment pulled the gun and fired a shot for 4 times. Rabanal take possession of Pascuaâ

s firearms and surrender it tothe security agency as proof that someone attempted to kill him and later to Camp Crame. For the reason that Pascua was a body guard of one named Fernanadez andmight have influenced in Dagupan area, he refuses to surrender in the said area. The lower court finds Rabanal of the crime Murder and sentenced to suffer death penalty and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.Issues:1.Whether or not Rabanal is guilty of the crime murder?2.Whether or not the indemnity is reasonably imposed?Decision of the Supreme Court:Decision of the lower court was modified from the crime of murder to the crime of homicide and deleted the award of damages was deleted.Ruling:1 ) For self â

defense to prosper, the accused must proved that the elements thatwould constitute a self â

defense must be present: (1) unlawful aggression on thepart of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent orrepel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. It presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening orintimidating attitude at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones life, limb or rightis either actual or imminent. Actual peril to ones life means that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence, or imminent in that the danger ison the point of happening. This cannot be said in this case because the victimwas unarmed when he was shot by accused-appellant. Indeed, the danger had already ceased when the victim laid his gun down on the pavement, thus enabling accused-appellant to push him away. It must be remembered that the means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct more than reason, that moves or impels the defense; and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but upon the imminent danger of such injury.2) They affirmed the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Such award requires no proof other than the death of the victim. Likewise, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is consistent with controlling case law taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victims family brought about by his death. However, the award of P26,000.00 for the Eternal Garden plot, P60,000.00 for the coffin of the victim and P100,000.00 for the wake and other expenses incurred in connection with the death of the deceased, amounting to a total of P186,000.00, should be modified. The trial court did not present any computation to justify such an amount. Infact, other than the bare allegations of the victims widow to this effect, the records are totally bereft of any receipt or voucher to justify the trial courtsaward for burial and other expenses. The rule is that every pecuniary loss mustbe established by credible evidence before it may be awarded. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts or other credible evidence. Thus, the amount of actual damages should accordingly be reduced to P66,000.
 
00, which is borne out by the evidence.People vs. GenblazoFacts:Sometime in January of 1988 at Quezon Street at Quezon, Obein and Opalsa are walking their way home when Gneblazo together with 6 other men throw stones at themand they retaliated. Upon their notice however, that Genblazo was drawing his knife the two friends run away from Geneblazo. Unfortunately for Opalsa, Geneblazo was able to get a hold on him and stabbed him twice. A police in the name of SPO1 Quiogue get noticed of the commotion outside his house and decided to checkon it. Then he fired his gun at the time he noticed the two men brawling as a sign for them to stop, but they never did. SPO1 then tried to separate the two butGeneblazo hit him in his fingers and Geneblazo run away and surrender to officer Baloyloy. On the other hand, the SPO1 together with Obien and the Brgy. Captain brought Opalsa to the hospital but declared to be dead on arrival.Issue:Whether or not Geneblazo was guilty of the crime murder?Decicion of S.C.:They Modified the decision of the lower court from murder to homicide.Ruling:For self-defense to prosper, it must be established that: (1) there was unlawfulaggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel suchaggression was reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocationon the part of the person defending himself. It is quite apparent that it was not the victim who committed the unlawful aggression but the accused-appellant himself. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack,or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude -- there has to exist a real danger to the life or personal safety of the person claiming self-defense. The prosecution failed to prove that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in this case. Treachery must be proven as clearly and as cogently as the crime itself. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself.People vs. JaurigueFacts:On September 13, 1942, Amado Capina approached Avelina Jaurigue while feeding her dogs. Amado confessed his love for Avelina, but his loved was turned down by the latter. Amado reacted by kissing, embracing, and touching the breast of Avelina. Avelina retaliated with a slapped on the face, fist blow, and kicked him. Since then Avelina armed herself with a knife. By September 15 Amado climbed up the house into the room of Avelina, and Avelina was able to get noticed of that and screamed for help. Moment after, her parents come to her aid and able to foundout that Amado was in the room and Amado ask for forgiveness. The following morning Amado together with his parents ask for apology. On the evening of September 20, Amado noticed Avelina in the church and decided to sat next to Avelina. Suddenly Amado place hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina Jaurigue,conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out with her right hand thefan knife , which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quicklygrabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, inflicting upon him a mortal wound.Issue:Whether or not Jaurigue was guilty of the crime Homicide?Decision of S.C.:Guilty of the crime Homicide and reduced to two degrees.Ruling:Stabbing to death the deceased Amado Capina, in the manner and form and under the circumstances above indicated, the defendant and appellant committed the crimeof homicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least thr
 
ee mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor. Avelina is not a criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the greatestprovocation. She is a God-fearing young woman, typical of our country girls, who still possess the consolation of religious hope in a world where so many others have hopelessly lost the faith of their elders and now drifting away they knownot where.Baxinela vs. PeopleFacts:On October 19, 1996, Baxinela and Regimen was in Playboy Disco Pub located at the 2nd flr. Of Kingsmen bldg. they saw someone with a handgun visibly tucked at the back of his waist. The man started walking at the door even before Regimen could come to him. As the man passed by their table, Baxinela from behind holds the manâ

s arm and ask why he did have a gun with him. Upon suspicion that the man istaking out his gun, he shoot the man. The security guards pick up the man who appeared to be Sgt. Lajo, while Baxinela reported the event to SPO4 Advincula.Issue:Whether or not Baxinela is guilty of Homicide?Decision of S.C.:The crime of Homicide was affirmed with modification.Ruling:For self-defense to prosper, it must be established that: (1) there was unlawfulaggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel suchaggression was reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocationon the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient. As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. Just before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the victim and holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor whenhe grabbed Lajoâ

s shoulder and started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was just turning around to face Baxinela and, quite possibly,reaching for his wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as unlawful aggression on the part of Lajo.The defense of fulfillment of a duty. In order to avail of this justifying circumstance it must be shown that: 1) the accused acted in the performance of a dutyor in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or theoffense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office. While the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking. Baxinelaâ

s duty was to investigate the reason whyLajo had a gun tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinela was doing when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety, edginess or the desire to take no chances, Baxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be considered due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in the pub. Essentially, Baxinela is trying to convince the Court that he should be absolved of criminal liability by reasonof a mistake of fact, a doctrine first enunciated in United States v. Ah Chong.It was held in that case that a mistake of fact will exempt a person from criminal liability so long as the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due tonegligence or bad faith. In examining the circumstances attendant in the presentcase, the Court finds that there was negligence on the part of Baxinela. Lajo,when he was shot, was simply turning around to see who was accosting him. Moreover, he identified himself saying "I am MIG." These circumstances alone would notlead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that Baxinelaâ

s life was in peril. Thus, his act of shooting Lajo, to the mind of this Court, constitutes clear negligence. The the use of unnecessary force or wanton violence is not justifiedwhen the fulfillment of their duty as law enforcers can be effected otherwise. A

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
James Tan liked this
Abigail Castillo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->