P. 1
People vs. Eduarte Digest

People vs. Eduarte Digest

|Views: 134|Likes:
Published by Kirsten Kate Calvo

More info:

Published by: Kirsten Kate Calvo on Jul 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

01/05/2013

pdf

text

original

FACTS: y The evidence of prosecution establishes that Fredeswindo Eduarte, suspecting that his wife was having an illicit

affair with another man, got a scissor. Upon seeing his intention, Roberto (Fredeswindo¶s brother-in-law) tried to pacify him. However, instead of being appeased, Fredeswindo thrusted the scissor to Roberto. Thereafter, Roberto drove his jeep to seek the help of policemen. On the way back, he saw Fredeswindo lying flat on the road so he stopped and alighted to help. Just when Roberto was in the act of extending assistance, Florentino Eduarte, Fredeswindo¶s brother, shot him, which caused his death. Not long after, the police authorities arrived and the place and looked for Florentino, but failed to locate him. On the other hand, the defense, in its counter-statement of facts, relates that when Fredeswindo confronted his wife, Roberto butted in and berated him which resulted to an exchange of words leading to altercation. Fredeswindo defended himself by grasping a scissor from his back and thrusting it against his assailant. When Roberto¶s wife saw this, she sought the help of Roberto¶s three brothers and they ganged up on Fredeswindo. Julie Eduarte, Fredewindo¶s brother, saw this and thereafter sought the help of their other brother, Florentino Eduarte. When Florentino arrived at the place of incident, he saw Roberto clubbing his brother who was lying, face downward and his shirt soaked with blood. The accused-appellant maintains that he is innocent of the crime as charged invoking the justifying circumstance of defense of relatives. Instead of making an assignment of errors, the accused-appellant states that the trial court was confronted with two conflicting versions, one asserting that Roberto Trinidad was shot while assisting Fredeswindo Eduarte and the other stating that Roberto was shot while clubbing Fredeswindo. In both cases, the appellant states that defense of relative should be appreciated.

y

y

ISSUE: Whether the defense of relatives under Article II, subparagraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code can be invoked by the accused-appellant in his favour. RULE: Article II, subparagraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstances are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

CONCLUSION: We find no merit in the claim that the shooting of Roberto was done in defense of a relative. his testimony that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Roberto was self-serving and uncorroborated. according to the accused-appellant.The first and second requisites are unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. It was when Roberto was about to deliver the final blow to Fredeswindo that the accused-appellant claimed he shot Roberto in defense of his brother. and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked. . it was incumbent upon the accused-appellant to prove the existence of the three essential requisites of the justifying circumstance of defense of relatives namely: (1) unlawful aggression. APPLICATION: The accused-appellant claims that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Roberto Trinidad considering that the scenario he saw after he was summoned from his place of work by his other brother Julie was that of his allegedly assaulted brother Fredeswindo sprawled on the ground and bathed in his own blood with Roberto Trinidad clubbing Fredeswindo. the justifying circumstance of defense of relative cannot be availed of. that the one making the defense had no part therein. Hence. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. the accused-appellant contends that there is no debate as to its presence since the accused-appellant was clearly not a part of the melee in question. Thus. the second requisite is also present considering that the use of a gun at that pressing moment was reasonable and necessary to prevent or repel the aforestated unlawful aggression. Hence. Although it is true that the accused-appellant took no part in the provocation that led to the killing incident. For this justifying circumstance to prosper. the evidence adduced must be persuasive. As regards the third requisite. Accused-appellant Florentino Eduarte is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. for lack of a clear unlawful aggression on the part of the victim Roberto and of the reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused-appellant.

In both cases. instead of being appeased. in case the provocation was given by the person attacked. Florentino Eduarte. got a scissor. When Florentino arrived at the place of incident. On the way back. Roberto drove his jeep to seek the help of policemen. Upon seeing his intention. On the other hand. However. Roberto (Fredeswindo¶s brother-in-law) tried to pacify him. Just when Roberto was in the act of extending assistance. Fredeswindo defended himself by grasping a scissor from his back and thrusting it against his assailant. that the one making defense had no part therein. descendants. RULE: y Article II. Instead of making an assignment of errors. the accused-appellant states that the trial court was confronted with two conflicting versions. natural or adopted brothers or sisters. . shot him. Fredeswindo thrusted the scissor to Roberto. When Roberto¶s wife saw this. saw this and thereafter sought the help of their other brother. Fredeswindo¶s brother. face downward and his shirt soaked with blood. sub paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code can be invoked by the accused-appellant in his favor. in its counter-statement of facts. relates that when Fredeswindo confronted his wife. or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Fredewindo¶s brother. and the further requisite. he saw Roberto clubbing his brother who was lying. one asserting that Roberto Trinidad was shot while assisting Fredeswindo Eduarte and the other stating that Roberto was shot while clubbing Fredeswindo. Julie Eduarte. ascendants. suspecting that his wife was having an illicit affair with another man. Not long after. provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstances are present. Roberto butted in and berated him which resulted to an exchange of words leading to altercation. or legitimate.MATERIAL FACTS: y The evidence of prosecution establishes that Fredeswindo Eduarte. the police authorities arrived and the place and looked for Florentino. y y ISSUE: Whether the defense of relatives under Article II. subparagraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: 2. The accused-appellant maintains that he is innocent of the crime as charged invoking the justifying circumstance of defense of relatives. Florentino Eduarte. the defense. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse. Thereafter. which caused his death. the appellant states that defense of relative should be appreciated. but failed to locate him. he saw Fredeswindo lying flat on the road so he stopped and alighted to help. she sought the help of Roberto¶s three brothers and they ganged up on Fredeswindo.

Hence. the justifying circumstance of defense of relative cannot be availed of. and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked. CONCLUSION: y We find no merit in the claim that the shooting of Roberto was done in defense of a relative. that the one making the defense had no part therein. Accusedappellant Florentino Eduarte is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. for lack of a clear unlawful aggression on the part of the victim Roberto and of the reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused-appellant. it was incumbent upon the accused-appellant to prove the existence of the three essential requisites of the justifying circumstance of defense of relatives namely: (1) unlawful aggression. . the accusedappellant contends that there is no debate as to its presence since the accusedappellant was clearly not a part of the melee in question. As regards the third requisite. Although it is true that the accused-appellant took no part in the provocation that led to the killing incident. Hence. the second requisite is also present considering that the use of a gun at that pressing moment was reasonable and necessary to prevent or repel the aforestated unlawful aggression. APPLICATION: y The accused-appellant claims that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Roberto Trinidad considering that the scenario he saw after he was summoned from his place of work by his other brother Julie was that of his allegedly assaulted brother Fredeswindo sprawled on the ground and bathed in his own blood with Roberto Trinidad clubbing Fredeswindo.y The first and second requisites are unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. For this justifying circumstance to prosper. his testimony that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Roberto was self-serving and uncorroborated. according to the accusedappellant. Thus. It was when Roberto was about to deliver the final blow to Fredeswindo that the accused-appellant claimed he shot Roberto in defense of his brother. the evidence adduced must be persuasive.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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