Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oriente
This case is about Manuel Oriente’s appeal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. The
appellant w/ other persons, attacked and assaulted Romulo Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe on
different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were
the direct and immediate cause of his death (as confirmed by the medico- legal). In the case
there was one witness for the prosecution; Arnel Tanael.
When the case was tried at the C.A. the court (C.A.) found that the R.T.C erred in finding two
mitigating circumstances were present, namely, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and
sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party, so the court modified the
penalty imposed by the R.T.C.
DID THE C.A. AND THE R.T.C ERR IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS AN
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM, AND THE MEANS EMPLOYED
BY APPELLANT TO PREVENT THE SAME WAS REASONABLE AND FALLS UNDER THE
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OR SELF-DEFENSE
- No. Since when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show
that the killing is legally justified. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The
appellant cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.
- All three requirements for self- defense must concur; but unlawful aggression is condition sine
qua non.
- The fact that the deceased was not able to make use of his gun after being hit in the forehead
by the weapon of the appellant as alleged by the defense makes their claim of self-defense
unusual
- Injuries sustained by the deceased were extensive
- Importantly, the appellant failed to establish the existence of the gun, that was alleged to have
constituted the “unlawful aggression”
HELD:
PETITION DENIED. DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF C.A. ARE AFFIRMED W/
MODIFICATIONS, the C.A. erred in imposing 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. In the computation of the maximum term, the law
prescribes that the attending circumstances should be considered. There being no aggravating
or mitigating circumstance in this case, the penalty that should be imposed is the medium period
of the penalty prescribed by law, that is, reclusion temporal in its medium period, or, anywhere
between fourteen years, eight months and one day to seventeen years and four months
I hope this helps.