Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Rivera - GR NO. L-16442 MARCH 21, 1921 SCRA

    Uploaded by

    MALALA MALALA
    42 views2 pages
    This case involved Martina Rivera who was charged with murder after killing Leona Laciste with a bolo. Laciste had tried to set fire to Rivera's house where Rivera's two children were sleeping. During a struggle, Rivera repeatedly stabbed Laciste after she had fallen to the ground outside the house. The court found that while Rivera was defending herself and her family initially, stabbing Laciste 14 times after she was no longer a threat went beyond reasonable self-defense. The court affirmed the guilty verdict for homicide but reduced the sentence from 8 years and 1 day to 3 years, taking into account the provocative nature of the initial aggression by Laciste.

    Original Description:

    SELF-DEFENSE|DEFENSE OF RELATIVE| REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED

    Original Title

    People vs Rivera - GR NO. L-16442 MARCH 21, 1921 SCRA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved Martina Rivera who was charged with murder after killing Leona Laciste with a bolo. Laciste had tried to set fire to Rivera's house where Rivera's two children were sleeping. During a struggle, Rivera repeatedly stabbed Laciste after she had fallen to the ground outside the house. The court found that while Rivera was defending herself and her family initially, stabbing Laciste 14 times after she was no longer a threat went beyond reasonable self-defense. The court affirmed the guilty verdict for homicide but reduced the sentence from 8 years and 1 day to 3 years, taking into account the provocative nature of the initial aggression by Laciste.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Flag for inappropriate content
    42 views2 pages

    People Vs Rivera - GR NO. L-16442 MARCH 21, 1921 SCRA

    Uploaded by

    MALALA MALALA
    This case involved Martina Rivera who was charged with murder after killing Leona Laciste with a bolo. Laciste had tried to set fire to Rivera's house where Rivera's two children were sleeping. During a struggle, Rivera repeatedly stabbed Laciste after she had fallen to the ground outside the house. The court found that while Rivera was defending herself and her family initially, stabbing Laciste 14 times after she was no longer a threat went beyond reasonable self-defense. The court affirmed the guilty verdict for homicide but reduced the sentence from 8 years and 1 day to 3 years, taking into account the provocative nature of the initial aggression by Laciste.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    PEOPLE VS RIVERA 

    GR NO. L-16442 MARCH 21, 1921

    SELF-DEFENSE|DEFENSE OF RELATIVE| REASONABLE NECESSITY OF


    THE MEANS EMPLOYED

    FACTS:

    Leona Laciste endeavored to set fire to the house of Martina Rivera. In this
    house, the two children of Rivera were sleeping. The two women grappled and
    Laciste was boloed to death by Rivera.

      A criminal prosecution was filed against Rivera for murder instituted in the
    CIR of La Union. After due trial, she was found guilty of the lesser crime of
    homicide and was sentenced to 8 years and 1 day of prison mayor, with accessory
    penalties amounting to P 500.00  to indemnify the heirs. 

    ISSUE:  WON the defendant should be exempted from all responsibility because
    of having acted in defense of her person, her rights and her descendants. 

    HELD:  Article 8 of the Penal Code exempts any person who acted in defense of
    his person or rights and his descendant provided that the following circumstances
    occur: ( 1) unlawful aggression; ( 2) reasonable necessity of the means employed
    to prevent or repel it; (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
    defending himself.  In view of the case, the first and last requisites concur but the
    second is LACKING.  

    The accused proceeded beyond the limits of immunity when, after the assailant
    was out of the house, and prostrated on the ground, she persisted in wounding her
    no less than fourteen times. 

    The lower court committed an error in taking into consideration the qualifying
    circumstance of cruelty. The number of wounds on the body of a deceased are not
    conclusive evidence of the presence of this circumstance.On the contrary, the
    evidence discloses more nearly the mitigating circumstance of passion and
    obfuscation.

    The accused is found guilty of homicide. It is however, the duty of the court to
    view with leniency the action of the defendant in view of the provocative nature of
    the aggression. Judgment is affirmed, with the modification that in place of eight
    years and one day of prison mayor, the defendant and appellant shall be sentenced
    to three years of prison correccional, and shall, in addition, pay the costs of this
    instance. So ordered.

    You might also like