Azarcon vs.

Sandiganbayan Issues: WON the SB gas jurisdiction over the subj matter of the controversy WON the pet can be considered a public officer by reason of his being designated by the VIR as depositary of distrained property Facts: • • • Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling dirt and ore. His services contracted by Paper industries Corp of Phil PICOP Engaged services of sub-contractors like Ancla whose trucks were left at pet’s premises. In May 1983, Warrant of Distraint of Personal Prop was issued by the Main Office of the BIR addressed to the Reg Director Batausa commanding him to distraint the goods, chattels or effects of other personal property of Ancla, subcontractor of Azarcon and delinquent taxpayer. The warrant of garnishment was issued to Azarcon ordering him to surrenter, transmit, or remit to BIT the property in his possession. Warrant was received by Azarcon in June 1985 Azarcon signed the “Receipt for goods, articles and things seized under auth of the National Internal Revenue” which stated that he promised to faithfully keep, preserve, to protect goods articles and things seized xxx and will produce and deliver all said goods, articles etc upon the order of any court in the Phill or upon demand of Commr of Internal Revenue or any agent of BIR. Azarcon wrote letter in 1985, November which stated that Azarcon ceased his operations and surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from custody. Incidentally pet reported taking of truck to security manager of PICOP and requested him to prevent truck being taken out of the PICOP concession. By the time the order was given, it was too late. In 1986, Calo, Revenue Doc Processor of Revenue Region sent a progress report about the surreptitious taking of the dump truck and that Ancla was renting out the truck to a certain contractor, Cueva, at PICOP, the same company which engaged pet earth moving services. She suggested that a warrant of garnishment be reissued against Mr. Cueva (PICOP) for whatever amount of rental is due from Ancla until he has paid his tax liabilities. Instead of doing so, Batausa filed a complaint against Pet. Prov Fiscal forwarded to Tanodbayan and then prelim invest was conducted. Ancla and Azarcon were charged before SB of malversation 217 in relation with 222. The charge states that since the private individual voluntarily offered himself as custodian of the truck and has become resp and accountable for said prop to satisfy the tax liability, the truck became public prop and the value thereof as public fun. Pet defense: 1. was not present during the prelim invest 2. not a public officer SB ruled that pet is guilty of malversation SC HELD:

Duman, Paulyn \ CRIM II \ Gutierrez \ I-E

On jurisdiction: SB has no jurisdiction over the individual. Jurisdiction must appear clearly from the statue law or it will not held to exist. • jurisdiction determined by the law at the time of the commencement of the action. • Applicable prov. PD 1601 amended by 1861 but prior to their amendment by RA 7975. • SB jurisdiction: a. Violations of 3019, anti-graft and corrupt practices b. other offenses by public officers and employees. C. In case private indiv are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with public officers or employees, they shall be tried jointly with the public officers and employees. • Therefore, jurisdiction of SB is hinged on WON Azarcon is a public officer by the meaning of law. On status of Azarcon: He is still a private individual. • crime doesn’t charge pet as co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer. ART 203 states what a public officer is. He doesn’t fall within the ambit of the definition. • Even when the pet, in signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public functions, he still may not be deemed a public officer. Not by popular election, not by appointment by direct provision of law or competent auth. • SOL GEN: takes case of US vs. Rastollo which ruled that the power to designate a private person who has actual possession of a distrained prop as a depository of distrained prop is necessarily implied in the BIR’s power to place the prop of a delinquent tax payer in distrained as provided of the NIRC CODE. SC disagrees. Different facts of the cases. Judicial deposit vs. BIR administrative act of effecting constructive destraint. • While the BIR had auth to require pet to sign a receipt for the distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it the power to appoint Pet a public officer. • Although sec 206 of the NIRC authorizes the BIR to effect a constructive distraint by requiring any person to preserve distrained prop there is no provision in the NIRC constituting such person a public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIR’s power authorizing a private indiv to act as depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. • Consideration of ART. 222 private indiv as public officer. SC ruled that a private indiv who has in his charge any of the public funds or prop enumerated and commits any of the acts defined should likewise be penelized with the same penalty meted to erring public officers. Nowhere in the said provision is it expressed or implied that a private indiv be deemed a public officer. Azarcon and Ancla, his co-accused, are both private indivs. Judgment annulled and set aside.

• • •


• •

• • • •

• •

Rodillas vs Sandiganbayan Issue: WON the SB committed a reversible error in holding the petitioner guilty of infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence penalized under 224 or the RPC. Facts: • • • Rodillas was a policeman thus a public officer who was in-charge of the custody of Zenaida Sacris, a detention officer being tried for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He was directed by his superior to escort Zenaida before the sala of Judge Pardo in Caloocan bec the policewoman who was supposed to escort her is sick. While waiting for the arrival of the judge, Pat. Andres, who happened to be a relative of the husband of the pris, requested Pet if pris can talk to her husband to which he agreed. After a while, he was asked if they be allowed to have lunch since they are really hungry and the policeman allowed them to. While eating, the husband requested the policeman if he can accompany the pris to the comfort room since she was not feeling well and felt like defacating. He permitted them and the accused with a lady companion accompanied the pris to the Women’s CR and he stood by the door. The lady companion went out of the CR and told him that she’s going to buy sanitary napkin for the pris. After 10 mins he became suspicious and so he went inside the CR only to find that the pris is nowhere to be found. He noticed the CR was not provided with window grills and he saw that outside the window there was a concrete eave extending down to the ground floor of the building where he presumed was used by the pris in escaping. Pat Andres advised him the pris house is located in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan but the husband lives in Nueva Ecija. Accused borrowed car of his brother-in-law and proceeded to said town and asked the relatives of pris of her whereabouts but to no avail. They went back to Caloocan to check the pris there but still she wasn’t there. The supervisor Victoriano arrived and accused relate to him what happened. Accused further declared that as a jailer, he never had any training not lecture by his superiors regarding the manner of delivering prisoners. He admitted that he did not inspect the CR first and that he did not promptly report the escape be they were then pressed for time to intercept pris at the highway. He was found guilty by SB of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner thru negligence under 224. Pet alleges that conviction was based merely on his admissions without prosecution presenting evidence to prove his negligence.

• •

• •

Duman, Paulyn \ CRIM II \ Gutierrez \ I-E Elements of Art. 224 present. A. public officer. B. charged with the conveyance or custody of the prisoner either detention or by final judgment. C. Such prisoner escapes thru his negligence. It was improper for pet to allow pris to have lunch with family when he was supposed to bring the pris back to jail which is 1K away from the sala of the judge. It is his duty to take necessary precautions to assure the absence of any means of escape. A failure to undertake these precautions will make his act one of definite laxity of negligence amounting to deliberate nonperformance of duty. Pet claims that the judge should have pronounce judgment so that the pris can be brought back to the jail immediately—inconsequential. And that he cannot follow the pris inside the CR is a lame excuse. He could have just asked the permission of the ladies that he will check the CR to insure that the pris will not escape. No genuine effort on his part to recapture the pris. He did not report promptly the matter so that an alarm could immediately be sent out. Pet contends also that there must first be a showing that he first connived with the prisoner. SC ruled that conniving or consenting to evasion is a distinct crime under 223. He is charged with infidelity in the custody of prisoners thru negligence and not with connivance with escaping prisoner.

Dismissed. Decision affirmed. People vs. Jumawan Issue: WON the evidence against the accused, independent of their alibis, has overcome the presumption of innocence in their favor and created a moral certainty as to their guilt. (Subsidiary issue of WON the accused can be charged of parricide when what was alleged in the case was murder) Facts: • • • This is a case where the RTC held the appellants guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment and was brought by appellants to SC on appeal. Francisco is the father of Presentacion who is married to the victim Rodolfo Magnaye. Maneul, Cesario are her brothers who were also charged with murder. Presentacion and Rodolfo were married in 1974 but they separated. The mother of Pres attempted to secure the signature of Rodolfo on a document agreeing to a separation to his wife so that the latter may be able to marry again but Rodolfo persisted and refused to sign. He was even brought to the Proc Constabulary Command to ask for assistance from a SGT but the SGT said that it can’t be legally done. In the afternoon of June 1976, Rodolfo told her Mom that he will be going to the public market as Pres asked him to fetch her. They will be talking about their lives. He left at 6 p.m.

• •


• •

SC Held: Guilty.

Duman, Paulyn \ CRIM II \ Gutierrez \ I-E One of the witnesses, Vicente Recepada, 67 yrs old, resident of Lucena City said he went there to attend the Aglipayan fiesta. After eating at the Sariling Atin eating place, went to formore BLTB station in Quezon and when he was in front of the public market he heard the slaughter of pigs and since he is in the business of buying pigs and chicken, went to the direction of the slaughter house to inquire about the prices. Before reaching the house, he heard noise of a man and a woman. He saw Francisco holding the hands of Rodolfo while Manuel was behind the victime and Cesario was in front of the victim and holding the collar of the victim with his left hand and his right hand with a bolo which stabbed the right nipple of the victim. He claims that he heard the woman ordering the three to stab the man and after doing so, shouted thieves. Policarpio Trinidad and Trinidad Alcantara also corroborated the testimony of Vicente to which Policarpio stated that he saw the three dragging the body of Rodolfo across the highway. The three claimed alibi and stated that they were not in the scene of the crime, which is the store if Bastiana Jumawan where Pres works. The police investigated the store and found traces of blood on one of the panels but when the police came back the next day, the traces were no longer there. Manuel claimed that he suffers from an abnormality of the left arm which he cannot raised but to which was denied by a medical certificate stating that there are no fractures nor abnormalities on the said arm. Francisco claims that he was sleeping and was awakened by the shouts of her daughter.

People vs. Tomotorgo Issue: WON the accused is guilty of physical injuries only and not parricide since there was no intent to kill on his part and that the result of the crime is different from that intended. Facts: • Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon is married to Magdalena de los Santos. Wife persistently asks here husband to sell the conjugal home which was located in Sitio Dinalungan, Barangay Cabugao, Cam Sur and that they transfer to the house of her husband in-laws which is in the town of Tinambac, Cam Sur. Husband would not accede to wife’s request bec he did not like to abandon their home and that he has many plants and improvements on the land which he was then farming. On June 23, 1977, at 7 am, the accused left home to go to farm and upon return at 9 am he found his wife and three-month old baby already gone. He proceeded to look for them and on a trail of about 200 meters from home saw wife with infant and a bundle of clothes. He asked and pleaded for their return but she adamantly refused to do so. When accused sought to take child from his wife, the latter threw the baby on the grassy portion of the trail and the baby started to cry. This conduct aroused the ire of the accused and with anger beyond his control picked up a piece of wood and started hitting wife with it until she fell to the ground complaining if severe pains on her chest. Realizing what he has done, picked up the wife and brought to home then came back for the baby on the grass. The wife died despite her husband’s effort to alleviate her pains. Accused changed the dress of wife and reported incident to the Barangay Captain who brought him to Policeman Arellosa to whom accused surrendered. He also brought the piece of wood he used to beat his wife. Charged of parricide. He first pleaded not guilty but changed it to guilty upon being re-arraigned. He was permitted to establish the mitigating circumstances which were invoked. A. voluntary surrender B. plea of guilty c. he acted upon impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation. RTC – reclusion perpetua. Appealed: contends: a. lack of intent to kill b. art 49 proper applicable penalty when crim committed different from that intended. C. not following mandatory sequence of procedures for det correct applicable penalty d. denying appellant benefits of the ISLAW.

• •

SC Held: Testimony of Vicente Recepeda linked to that of Trinidad Alcantara and Policarpio Trinidad shows that the four appellants conspired and cooperated in the assassination of Rodolfo.

• • • • • •



The victim and the wife had a rendezvous in order to discuss the fate of their marriage. Their alibis cannot prevail for the ff reasons: a. Francisco, Cesario, and Manuel were positively identified to be at the scene of the crime by the witnesses b. the places where they claimed to be were not far from the scene of the crime so that it was not impossible for them to be there. Presentacion should have been accused of parricide but her relationship with deceased is not alleged in the information, she, like the others, can be convicted of murder only qualified by abuse of superior strength. Although not alleged in the information, relationship is an aggravating circumstance aand should be assigned against appellants. Relationship is inherent in parricide but she stands convicted of murder. As to the others, the relationships of father-in-law and brother-in-law aggravate the crime. Penalty for murder with aggravating circ is death but there is a lack of the necessary votes therefore, reclusion perpetua.

Judgment affirmed in toto.

SC held: No merit in the appeal which assails the correctness of penalty.

• • •

Appellant avers physical injuries only and not parricide’s penalty should be imposed on him. ART 49. invokes art. 64, sub par 5, 2 mitigating circ and no aggravating circ, penalty next lower to that prescribed by law. Court in complete accord with and sustain ruling by courts below that accused not entitled to the benefits of the ISLAW. Art. 49 not apply to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act bec under art. 4, par 1 of the same Code, he is liable for all the direct and natural consequences of his unlawful act. His lact of intention to commit so grave a wrong is, at best, mitigating. People vs. Alburquerque: Art 49 applies only to cases where the crime committed is different from that intended and where the felony committed befalls a different person. People vs. Laureano et. Al.: Art 246 of the RPC punishes parricide with the penalty of reclusion perptua to death, which are two indivisible penalties. As the commission of the act was attended by mitigating circ with no aggrav, the lesser penalty, which is rec perpetua should be imposed. SC held that the fact that appellant intended to maltreat the victim only or inflict physical injuries does not exempt him from liability for the resulting more serious crime. RTC had added a recommendation that executive clemency be extended to the accused-appellant after his service of the minimum of the medium penalty of prision mayor. SOL Gen: prays in the People’s Brief that in view of the circumstances, recommends for the commutation of the penalty. 7 years already of detention of the accused. SC: expresses hope that absolute or conditional pardon by President OR that there be a commutation of his sentence so that he may qualify and be eligible for parole. There is a manifest repentant attitude of the accused and his remorse for his act which the RTC made particular mention and the recommendation of the SOL GEN as well as the number of years that the accused had been imprisoned. The recommendation of the Court should be promptly brought to the attention of the President by the proper auth in whose custody the herein accused has been placed.

Duman, Paulyn \ CRIM II \ Gutierrez \ I-E all existing death sentences, the accused was required WON he wished to purse the case as appealed. He wished to continue with the case by way of appeal. • • On July 15, 1984 the accused was charged of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder. Francisco Abarca, accused, has a wife who had an illicit relationship with Khingsley Paul Koh which started when he was reviewing for the 1983 Bar exam in Manila and his wife was left in Tacloban. On July 15, 1984, he was in his residence in Tacloban. On the morning of that date, he went to a bus station to go to Eastern Samar to fetch his daughter however he was not able to catch the first trip so he went back to the station in the afternoon but the bus cannot leave bec of engine trouble. He then proceeded to the house of his father then he went home at around 6 pm. Upon reaching home, he found his wife Jenny and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife noticed the accused, she pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was peeping above the build-in cabinet ran away. He went to look for a firearm and got an M-16 from C2C Talbo, a PC soldier and went back to his house. He was not able to find his wife and her paramour so he went to the mahjong session where Khingsley hangouts. He found him playing and then he fired at him 3 times with rifle. Koh was hit. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying the adjacent room of the mahjong room were hit as well. Koh died instantaneously but the spouses were able to survive due to time medical assistance. Arnold was hit in the kidney. He was not able to work for 1 and ½ months because of his wounds and he was receiving P1000 as salary. He spent 15K for hospital while his wife spent 1K for the same purpose. RTC rendered the appealed judgment as guilty of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder. Art. 63 which does not consider effect of mitigating or aggrav circ when law prescribes a singe indivisible penalty in relation to art. 48. He was ordered to indemnify heirs of Koh for P30,000 and the spouses for P20,000. Considering the circumstances of the crime, the RTC believes that accused is deserving of executive clemency, not of full pardon but of substantial if not radical reduction or commutation of his death sentence. SOL Gen: recommends to apply Art. 247.


• • • • • •

Judgment affirmed. People vs. Abarca Issue: WON the accused is rightfully convicted of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder instead of entering a judgment of conviction under Art. 247. Facts: • The case was elevated to the SC in view of the death sentence imposed. But with the approval of the new Consti abolishing death penalty and commuting

SC held: Agree with Sol Gen on death of Koh. But disagree with regard to the injuries inflicted upon the spouses—not double frustrated murder. But accused cannot be exempted.

On Koh’s Death: • • • • There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour in the act of illicit copulation. Elements of Art. 247: a. legally married surprises spouse in the act of sex with another person b. that he kills any or both of them in the act or immediately after. These elements present in the case. Although an hour has passed bet the sex act and the shooting of Koh, the shooting must be understtod to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused. Art only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse and must not have been influenced by external factors. People vs. Araquel: Only acts or omissions constituting the offense should be pleaded in a complaint or information, and a circumstance which mitigates criminal liability or exempts the accused therefrom, not being an essential element of the offense charged—but a matter of defense that must be proved to the satisfaction of the court—need not be pleaded. Punishment is not inflicted upon the accused. He is banished but that is intended for his own protection.

Duman, Paulyn \ CRIM II \ Gutierrez \ I-E

People vs. Pugay Issue: WON the RTC was correct in find the accused guilt of murder qualified with treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and superior strength and the means employed was to weaken the defense and that the wrong dne in the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented by causing another wrong that is the burning of the body of the victim. Facts: • • • • Miranda, deceased, is a 25-year old retardate and the accused Pugay were friends. Miranda used to fun errands for Pugay and at times, they slep together. On May 19, 1982, a town fiesta was held in the public plaza and there were different kinds of rides including the ferris wheel. Sometime after midnight, Eduardo Gabion who was sitting at the ferris wheel reading a comic book with a friend. Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived and were drunk as they were noisy and happy. As they saw Miranda walking nearby, they started making fun of him and tickled him with a piece of wood to dance. Pugay took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel and poured its contents on Miranda. Gabion told Pugay not to do so while the latter was in the process of pouring the gasoline. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. Body of deceased was still aflame when the police arrived at the scene. Upon inquiring among the people, they spontaneously pointed to Pugay and Samson. Miranda was rushed to the Grace Hospital for treatment while the two accused and other five persons were took for interrogation. A few hours after the incident, the accused gave their written statements to the police. Pugay admitted that he poured gasoline and accused Samson alleged in his statement that he saw Pugay pour gasoline but did not see who set Miranda on fire. They both did not impute any participation of eyewitness Gabion in the commission. The accused repudiated their written statements and claim that they were extracted by force into admitting the crime. They also blamed Gabion for the crime Although there were written statements, these were not the sole basis for the findings of facts. Even without these, Gabion’s straightforward testimony which remains unaffected by the uncorroborated testimony of the accused. Accused asserted that prosecution suppressed other witnesses and only Gabion was presented. There is no dispute that there were other witnesses in

On the injuries of the spouses: • • Sol Gen: recommends double frustrated murder and being a more severe offense, rec temp in its max. SC ruled: Disagree with Sol Gen. The accused didn’t have the intent to kill the spouses. Although as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, the rule presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony. In the case, he was not committing murder when he discharged rifle upon deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional circ is not murder. However, while it appears that before he fired at the deceased, he warned the people that those who are not concerned must get out, he is negligent on this part. Liable under 2nd par of art. 365 of less serious physical injuries thru simple negligence or imprudence. Amparado incapacitated for one and one-half months, no showing with wife as to the extent of injuries. 10-15 days only based on med cert. For the separate injuries suffered by the spouses, we impose arresto mayor (in medium and max) in its max period. Sentence: 4 months and 21 days to 6 months of AM. The period within which he has been in confinement shall be credited in service of these penaltiles. Indemnify spouses in the sum of P16K and 1,500 for Arnold’s loss of earning capacity.

• • • • •



• • •

Decision modified.

the crime but their non-presence doesn’t give rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. This presumption doesn’t apply to the suppression of merely corroborative evidence. The matter as to whom to utilize as witness is for the prosecution to decide. They also alleged that the mother of Miranda asked Gabion to testify but eveidence shows that this is not the case. The uncle was the one who talked to him. And even so, Gabion has no reason to testify falsely against them. They also alleged that his testimony is incredible bec of the absurdity of reading a comic book while in the ferris wheel. However, during crossexamination, Gabion clearly stated that after he told Pugay not to pour gasoline, he resumed reading the comics, and that when the victim’s body is on fire, that is only when he noticed a commotion.

Duman, Paulyn \ CRIM II \ Gutierrez \ I-E

People vs. Salufrania Issue: WON the crime judged by the RTC of complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion is proper. (Subsidiary issue of WON Pedro as a witness is considered competent thus giving credence to his testimony) Facts: • • Accused was sentenced to death thus an automatic review of the SC. Filomeno Salufrania and Marciana Abuyo were legally marriend and they had several children. Two of of their sons, Pedro and Alex witnessed how their father killed their mother. Pedro is 13 years old and accused alleged that he cannot be considered as witness since he is of tender age thus incapable of receiving correct impressions of facts and that he was only 11 when the crime happened. Presumed to incompetent under ROC Art 130 sec 19(b). However, with careful supervision of the court a quo, they determined that he is capable and intelligent. He convincingly declared that he was not under the threat of his uncle to testify. He testified that at around 6 pm their parents quarreled and he saw his father boxed the stomach of his pregnant mother then strangle her to death afterwards. He saw blood oozing from her nose and eyes and died on the spot where she fell. Then he saw his father went out of the house to get a hammock and the father arrived early in the morning and place the body of their mother in the hammock and brought to his sister Conching in Tigbinan and from there was transferred to Talisay for burial. He refused to live with his father because the latter threatened him and his siblings that he will kill them should they reveal the true cause of their mother’s death. Narciso Abuyo testified that the accused and his sister were legally wedded husband and wife evidenced by a marriage contract. That he first came to know about his sister’s death thru his nephews. After being told of the incident, he went to the polces. Accused had for his defense witnesses Villan, Bragais, Balce and himself. Villan: testified that he happened to pass by the house and saw accused boiling ikmo and garlic as medicine for wife who was about to deliver. He helped the accused in applying the treatment on the victim’s body. When the condition worsened, he told accused to get Bragais who is a healer. But when the latter arrived, victim is already dead.

SC held: The judgment is affirmed with modifications. • There is nothing in the records that shows that there was a precious conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention bet the two accused immediately before the crime. There was no animosity and their meeting at the scene of the crime was accidental. They only want to make fun of the deceased. The respective criminal resp of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against the deceased is individual and not collective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him. Pugay’s criminal responsibility: he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the victim. SC agrees with SOL gen that Pugay is only guilt of HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE under 365 of RPC. Proper penalty for Pugay: Indeterminate from 4 months of Am as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of PC as max. Samson’s criminal responsibility: SOL Gen contends murder is proper considering setting victim on fire knowing that gasoline has been poured on him, characterized by treachery. SC do not agree. There is an absence of intent to kill and that his act was just part of their fun-making that evening. Treachery-deliberate attack and employing means to insure its execution removing any form of defense from the offended party. His act however doesn’t relieve him of crim resp. Burining the clothes of victim would cause at the very least some kind of physical injury. ART 4, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from what is intended. Guilty of HOMICIDE under 249 with mitigating circ of no intention to commit so grave a wrong. They were actually stunned to see the victim burning. Indemnity for death=P30K, with moral and exemplary damages.

• •

• • •

• • • •

• •

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Duman, Paulyn \ CRIM II \ Gutierrez \ I-E • • • Bragais: testified that he was fetched by Felipe, another son, and that victim was already dead when he arrived. Balce: was called by one of the latter’s son and when she arrived, victim is still in coma lying on the lap of the husband. Filomeno: said that he was wedded to victim and that wife complained of stomach pain and so he took care of her, prepared the treatment and the condition worsened, woke up sons to call for help and fetch Villanueva but the sons arrived without Villanueva but arrived a little later.

SC held: Accused guilty of Complex Crime of Parricide with Unintentional Abortion. Gave credence to Pedro’s testimony than the accused’s defense witnesses. • Although there were minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in Pedro’s testimony, the Court appreciated his answer only as miscomprehension or confusion of the questions asked by the examiner. There is no inconsistency when he stated that they kept vigil while lying down pretending to be asleep. On the allegation that the divulging of the real cause of their mother’s death as being late or delayed, the court held that the fear that he could be killed also must have deterred him from divulging the truth earlier. On the allegation that if witness was awake, it was improbable for the child to just keep awake and just watch the killing. Court held this reasoning is untenable since Pedro must have been so shocked. One cannot overlook that there is no standard form of behaviour when one is confronted by a shocking occurrence. Alex was not allowed to testify since he may not have been competent. Even when he is competent, his testimony could be merely corroborative. On the issue of the competence of the doctor who conducted an autopsy after cadaver has been buried for a week, Court held that doctor has conducted 10 similar post-mortem exams and would constitute sufficient experience. Accused did not object to doctor’s expression of medical opinion during trial. On the allegation that the RTC discredited the def’s witnesses, Court held that appellant did not even bother to discuss his defense in order to refute the massive evidence against him. The def’s witnesses made statements as if they were very fresh and clear in their minds despite the lapse of 4 long years. The witnesses were not there when the victim died, so they don’t have sufficient evidence as to how the victim really died. On Sol Gen finding accused guilty of intentional abortion by boxing the stomach of the victim: Court held that mere boxing on the stomach with immediate strangling is not sufficient proof to show intent to cause an abortion. Therefore, unintentional. Art. 48 of RPC states that accused should be punised with penalty corresponding to the more serious crime of parricide, to be imposed in its max period. Suffer reclusion perpetua and indemnify heirs P30,000.

• •

• •

• •

Reyes on ART 48 and 49:

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful