Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MURDER
BENJAMIN RUSTIA, JR., BENJAMIN RUSTIA, SR.,
AND FAUSTINO "BONG" RUSTIA V. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES OCTOBER 05, 2016 G.R. NO.
208351
• Doctrine:
In a criminal prosecution for murder qualified by the
attendant circumstance of treachery, the means, method, or form
of the attack must be shown to have been consciously and
deliberately adopted by the offender before the same can be
considered to qualify the killing.
Otherwise, the killing amounts only to homicide. It is not sufficient
that the victim was unable to defend himself. The Prosecution must
show that the accused consciously adopted such mode of attack
to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.
ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ARNEL
BALUTE
G.R. NO. 189272, JANUARY 21, 2015
J. PERLAS-BERNABE
• It states:
“The presence of any person during the
hazing is PRIMA FACIE evidence as
participation therein as principal unless he
prevented the commission of the acts
punishable herein.”
THE CA RULING
• The CA Ruling that the appeal of Dungo and
Sibal was bereft of merit.
• It stated that, in finding them guilty of violating
R.A. No. 8049, the RTC properly relied on
circumstancial evidenced adduced by the
prosecution. The CA painstakingly discussed
the unbroken chain of circumstancial
evidence to convict Dungo and Sibal as
principals in the crime of hazing.
• It further found that the defense of denial and alibi
of Dungo and Sibal failed to cast doubt on the
positive identification made by the witnesses; and
that denial, being inherently weak, could not
prevail over the positive identification of the
accused as the perpetrators of the crime.
• The CA also stated that Dungo and Sibal were not
only convicted based on their presence in the
venue of the hazing but also in their act of bringing
the victim to Villa Novaliches Resort for the final
initiation rites.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW, ACT NO. 4103 as amended
[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005,
2003, 2002, 1999, 1994, 1991, 1990,
1989, 1988]
1. If
a special law adopted
penalties from the RPC,
ISLAW will apply just as it
would in felonies.
Ex.
RA 7610 although a special law, adopted
the penalty defined in RPC.
2. The imposition of
indeterminate sentence is
mandatory in criminal cases.
3. When is ISLAW not applicable?
(MEMORIZE)
1. Offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Habitual delinquents.
6. Those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded
sentence.
7. Those granted with conditional pardon and who violated the
terms of the same.
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not
exceed one year.
9. Those already serving final judgment upon the approval of this
Act.
4. The law is not applicable if the
penalty is destierro. Why? It does not
involve imprisonment.
5. Rules:
SPL RPC
Minimum term -shall not be less than “with the range of the
minimum fixed by penalty next lower to
law” that prescribed by the
Code.
*NOTE:
-Rules in offsetting are not applicable in crimes
punished under a SPECIAL LAW. The presence of any
generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating circumstances
will not affect the proper imposition of the penalty.
If
the maximum term arrived and it does not exceed 1 year, ISLAW
will not apply.
b.
sentenced to a term of more than 1
year imprisonment – shall not exceed 6
years
“ADONAI is my Rock, my fortress and deliverer,
my God, my Rock, in whom I find shelter,
my Shield, the power that saves me,
my stronghold”…
PSALMS 17-18
Thank you!