CRIM 1 REVIEWER - Justifying Circumstances (Cases)

November 16, 2017 | Author: Anna Clarita Sangkal | Category: Assault, Criminal Law, Justice, Crime & Justice, Crimes
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

notes...

Description

CRIM  1  REVIEWER   JUSTIFYING  CIRCUMSTANCES    

CASE  

FACTS  

ISSUE  

RATIO  

Self-­‐ defense  

P.  v.   Boholst-­‐ Caballero    

-­‐  Boholst-­‐Caballero  was   charged  with  Parricide   for  killing  her  husband   with  a  knife   -­‐  they  were  separated   in  fact  for  a  year   (husband  left  wife)   -­‐  one  night  while  the   wife  was  caroling  with   friends,  the  husband   went  up  to  her  and   accused  her  of   prostituting.  He  even   said  “where  are  you?  I   will  kill  you”   -­‐  the  husband  started   strangling  the  wife   until  she  was  lying  on   the  floor,  she  felt  a   knife  on  her  husband’s   waist  so  she  got  it  and   stabbed  the  husband.   -­‐  husband  died  after   two  days.    

WON  Boholst-­‐ Caballero  is   justified  in   killing  the   husband    

-­‐  Yes.  there  was  a   reasonable  necessity   to  kill  as  self-­‐defense.   -­‐  the  location  of  the   wound  indicates  that   the  stab  was  done  in   self-­‐defense.  (it   couldn’t  have  been   stabbed  in  that  area   if  the  wife  was  the   aggressor)   -­‐  the  three  requisites   of  self-­‐defense  were   present    

 

P.  v.   Alconga    

-­‐  the  accused’s  friend   was  playing  blackjack   with  the  deceased.  The   accused  was  standing   at  the  back  of  the   deceased  as  a  spotter   for  his  friend.   -­‐  the  deceased   discovered  their  trick   and  got  mad   -­‐  a  day  or  two  after  the   incident,  the  deceased   attacked  the  accused   with  a  pingahan  while   saying  “coroy  this  is   your  breakfast”.  They   accused  got  hold  of  a   bolo  and  later  on  a   revolver  and  they   continued  to  fight  

WON  Alconga   -­‐        -­‐  No.  there  were    two   was  justified   stages  of  the  fight.   for  killing  the   The  first  one  was  the   deceased       deceased   approached  alconga   with  a  pingahan  and   second  was  when   deceased  decided  to   runaway.  The   accused  struck  during   the  second  stage,   should  he  have  killed   the  deceased  during   the  first,  it  would  be   justified  for  self-­‐ defense   -­‐        -­‐  it  is  now  self-­‐defense   if  there  is  no   unlawful  aggression   towards  the  accused  

-­‐  the  deceased   obtained  several   wounds  throughout   the  fight  so  he  decided   to  run  away.  But  the   accused  ran  after  him   and  using  his  bolo  hit   the  cranium  of  the   deceased.  He  claimed   that  it  was  self-­‐ defense.   -­‐  Alconga,  accused,  was   convicted  of  Homicide        

US  v  Mack  

The  accused  was  sitting   on  a  bench  a  few  feet   back  from  the  street,  in   the  town  of  Tacloban,   in  the  Province  of   Leyte,  in  an  open  space   some  3  or  4  feet,   width,  between  the   tienda  or  content  of  a   woman  named  Olimpia   and  another  building.   The  deceased,  with   another  policemen,   approached  the  place   directed  Olimpia  to   close  her  tienda,  and,   later,  ordered  the   accused  and  another   soldier  who  was   standing  nearby  to  go   to  their  quarters.  The   accused  did  not  obey   this  order,  and  it  is   probable  that  some   words  passed  between   the  soldiers,  the   policemen,  and  the   woman  which  angered   the  deceased,  though   the  weight  of  the   evidence  clearly   maintain  the   contention  of  the   accused  that  he  did   and  said  nothing  to   provoke  or  offend  the  

at  that  particular   moment.   -­‐  It  could  only  be  self-­‐ defense  when  it  is   proven  that  the   deceased  was   running  away  to  get   an  upper  hand  like  to   get  a  bolo,  this  was   not  proven  in  this   particular  case    

WON  Mack   can  invoke   self-­‐defense.    

Yes.  It  affirmatively   appears  from  the   evidence  of  record   that  there  was  an   unprovoked,  illegal   aggression  on  the   part  of  the  deceased,   as  held  by  the  trial   court,  after  a  careful   analysis  of  the   testimony;  and   further  that  there   was  reasonable   necessity  for  the  use   of  the  means   employed  by  the   accused  to  defend   himself  from  this   unlawful  aggression.   Mere  physical   superiority  in  no   protection  to  an   unarmed  man,  as   against  an  assailant   armed  with  a  large   bolo,  and  if  it  be  true   that  the  deceased   was  under  the   influence  of  liquor   when  he  made  that   attack,  his   intoxication  probably   rendered  him  the   more  dangerous   unless  he  was  so   drunk  as  to  be  

 

People  v   Sumicad  

deceased,  except  in  so   far  as  his  failure  to   obey  the  order  to  go  to   his  quarters  may  have   had  that  effect.  The   deceased,  who  was   standing  some  10  or  12   feet  from  the  accused,   cursing  and  abusing   him  for  his  failure  to   obey  the  order,   wrought  himself  into  a   passion  dragged   himself  free  from  his   companion,  who  was   endeavoring  to  restrain   him  and  take  him   away,  and  started   toward  the  accused,  at   the  same  time  drawing   his  bolo  and   brandishing  it  in  a   threatening  manner.   Thereupon  the  accused   got  up,  drew  his   revolver,  and  the   deceased  having  then   approached  within  a   distance  of  from  3  to  6   feet,  the  accused  fired   three  shots,  one  of   which  took  effect  in   the  left  breast  of  the   deceased,  just  above   the  nipple,  and  another   in  the  back  of  his  head.  

physically  helpless,   which  is  not   suggested  in  the   evidence.   A  murderous  attack   with  a  formidable-­‐ looking  bolo  is  a  very   different  from  an   assault  with  a  small   chisel  or  a  piece  of   bamboo,  and  the  fact   that  this  court  has   held  that  the  taking   of  life  was  not   reasonably  necessary   in  defending  oneself   against  assault  in  the   latter  cases  does  not   sustain  a  ruling  that   taking  the  life  of   one's  assailant  in  the   former  case  may  not   become  reasonably   necessary  in  the   defense  of  one's   person,  as  we  think  it   was  in  the  case  at   bar.  (from  RM!!   thanks  RM!)    

-­‐  accused  Sumicad  saw   WON  Sumicad   Cubol,  who  Sumicad   acted  in  self-­‐ apparently  worked  for,   defense.  YES.   so  Sumicad  asked   Cubol  to  pay  him  his   salary   -­‐  Cubol  said  that  he   didn’t  owe  him   anything,  insulted  him,   then  struck  Sumicad   with  his  fist   continuously  until   Sumicad  was  stuck  in  a   corner  with  logs  

-­‐  Cubol  was  known  to   be  an  ex  convict  and   dangerous  man   -­‐  Elements  of  self   defense  present:   1)  Cubol  was  the   aggressor   2)  Lack  of  sufficient   provocation  on  part   of  Sumicad   3)  reasonable   necessity  for  the   means  employed  by   him  to  prevent  or  

-­‐  Sumicad  struck  Cubol   with  his  Bolo  3  times,   then  surrendered  to   the  Justice  of  Peace,   but  Cubol  died  

Defense  of   People  v   Honor   Luague  

In  the  morning  of   February  18,  1935,   while  the  accused   Natividad  Luague  was   in  her  house  situated  in   Lupuhan,  barrio  of   Agpañgi,  municipality   of  Calatrava,   Occidental  Negros,   with  only  her  three   children  of  tender  age   for  company,  her   husband  and  co-­‐ accused  Wenceslao   Alcansare  having  gone   to  grind  corn  in  Juan   Garing's  house  several   kilometers  away,   Paulino  Disuasido  came   and  began  to  make   love  to  her;  that  as   Natividad  could  not   dissuade  him  from  his   purpose,  she  started   for  the  kitchen  where   Paulino  followed  her,   notwithstanding  her   instance  that  she  could   by  no  means  accede  to   his  wishes,  for  Paulino,   bent  on  satisfying  them   at  all  costs,  drew  and   opened  a  knife  and,   threatening  her  with   death,  began  to   embrace  her  and  to   touch  her  breasts;  that   in  preparing  to  lie  with   her,  Paulino  had  to   leave  the  knife  on  the   floor  and  the  accused,  

repel  the  aggression   *striking  Cubol  with   bolo  two  more  times   was  justifiable   because  he  did  not   back  off  when   Sumicad  first  hit  him   *Cubol  was  a  bigger   and  stronger  man   WON  the   accused  can   invoke   defense  of   honor/self-­‐ defense    

Yes.  Natividad   Luague's  act  in   mortally  wounding   Paulino  Disuasido,   unaided  her  husband   and  co-­‐accused   Wenceslao   Alcansare,  and  in  the   circumstances  above   set  out,  constitutes   the  exempting   circumstance  defined   in  article  11,   subsection  1,  of  the   Revised  Penal  Code,   because,  as  stated  by   a  commentator  of   note,  "aside  from  the   right  to  life  on  which   rest  the  legitimate   defense  of  our   person,  we  have  the   right  to  party   acquired  by  us,  and   the  right  to  honor   which  is  not  the  least   prized  of  man's   patrimony."  (1  Viada,   172,  173,  5th   edition.)  "Will  the   attempt  to  rape  a   woman  constitute  an   aggression  sufficient   to  put  her  in  a  state   of  legitimate   defense?"  asks  the   same  commentator.   "We  think  so,"  he   answer,  "inasmuch   as  a  woman's  honor   cannot  but  be  

taking  advantage  of  the   situation,  picked  up  the   weapon  and  stabbed   him  in  the  abdomen;   and  that  Paulino,   feeling  himself   wounded,  ran  away   jumping  through  the   window  and  falling  on   some  stones,  while  the   accused  set  forth   immediately  for  the   poblacion  to  surrender   herself  to  the   authorities  and  report   the  incident.   The  theory  the   prosecution,  which  we   consider  a  trifle   unsubstantial  is  as   follows:  The  accused   Wenceslao  Alcansare,   thinking  that  Paulino   importuned  his  wife   with  unchaste   advances,  out  of   jealousy,  decided  to   get  rid  of  him.  His   chance  to  bring  about   his  plan  can  when,  in   the  morning  of  the   crime,  Paulino   happened  to  pass  in   front  of  the  house  of   the  spouses  with  his   friend  Olimpio   Libosada.  The  accused   wife  invited  Paulino  to   drop  in,  which  the   letter  and  his  friend   did.  The  spouses  met   them  at  the  threshold.   The  accused  wife  asked   Paulino  whether  he   had  a  knife  and  as  the   latter  answered  in  the   affirmative,  she  asked   him  to  lend  it  to  lend  it   to  her  because  she   wanted  to  cut  her  nails,   to  which  Paulino  

esteemed  as  a  right   as  precious,  if  not   more,  cannot  her   very  existence;  this   offense,  unlike   ordinary  slander  by   word  or  deed   susceptible  of  judicial   redress,  in  an   outrage  which   impresses  an   indelible  blot  on  the   victim,  for,  as  the   Roman  Law  says:   quum  virginitas,  vel   castitas,  corupta   restitui  non  protest   (because  virginity  or   chastity,  once   defiled,  cannot  be   restored).  It  is   evident  that  a   woman  who,   imperiled,  wounds,   nay  kills  the  offender,   should  be  afforded   exemption  from   criminal  liability   provided  by  this   article  and   subsection  since  such   killing  cannot  be   considered  a  crime   from  the  moment  it   became  the  only   means  left  for  her  to   protect  her  honor   from  so  great  an   outrage."  (1  Viada,   301,  5th  edition.)     (FROM  RM!!  THANKS   RM!)  

willingly  acceded,  while   the  accused  wife  was   cutting  her  nails,  she   asked  Paulino  where   he  came  from  and  the   latter  answered,   turning  his  head   around,  that  he  came   from  the  house  of  one   Inting,  whereupon  the   accused  wife  slashed   him  in  the  abdomen.   Paulino  tried  to  return   the  blow  but  the   accused  husband   picked  up  a  stone  and   struck  him  in  the   forehead.  Wounded  in   the  abdomen  and  in   the  forehead,  Paulino   fled  therefrom.      

People  v   Dela  Cruz  

-­‐  Dela  Cruz  was  walking   in  a  dark  path  (going   home  from  a  wake)   when  Rivera  suddenly   grabbed  her  and   started  to  molest  her   -­‐  She  tried  to  free   herself,  but  the  man   was  stronger  than  her   so  she  got  the  knife   from  her  pocket  (she   was  a  fruit  vendor)  and   stabbed  him  with  it  

WON  Dela   Cruz’s  act  of   stabbing  with   a  knife  is   justifiable  as   an  act  in   defense  of  her   honor.  YES.  

-­‐  Dela  Cruz  only   stabbed  him  once   even  if  she  could   have  stabbed  him   more  (desisted)   -­‐  story  is  not  a   fabrication:  she  is   just  an  illiterate   barrio  girl     -­‐  Rivera  grabbed  her   from  behind  and  it   was  dark  and  he   refused  to  reveal  his   identity,  and  she  was   unable  to  free  herself   using  only  her   strength,  so  using   knife  was  justifiable  

 

people  v   Jaurigue  

-­‐  deceased  Amado   sexually  assaulted   Avelina  days  before   incident   -­‐  one  day  inside  the   chapel,  Amado  sat   beside  Avelina  then   placed  his  hand  on  her   thigh   -­‐  a  brief  scuffle  ensued,  

WON  Avelina   was  justified   in  killing   Amado.  NO  

-­‐  As  long  as  there  is   actual  danger  of   being  raped,  a   woman  is  justified  in   killing  her  aggressor   -­‐    there  was  no   possibility  of  being   raped,  considering   there  were  a  lot  of   people  

where  Amado  got   stabbed  in  the  neck   with  a  fan-­‐knife   Defense  of   People  v   Property   Apolinar  

 

WON   Apolinar’s   killing  of   Petras  could   be  justified  by   defense  of   property.  NO  

-­‐  The  right  to   property  is  not  of   such  importance  as   right  to  life,  and   defense  of  property   can  be  invoked  as  a   justifying   circumstance  only   when  it  is  coupled   with  an  attack  on  the   person  of  one   entrusted  with  said   property  

US  v   -­‐  Bumanglag  found   WON  there  is   Bumanglag   palay  stolen  from  him   defense  of   in  an  enclosed  field   property.  NO   -­‐  he  waited  near  the   field  with  his   companions  for  the   'thief'  to  appear   -­‐  deceased  Ribis  arrived   and  attempted  to  carry   away  the  palay   -­‐  Bumanglag  and   friends  assaulted  Ribis   with  sticks  

-­‐  Defense  of  property   can  be  invoked  only   when  it  is  coupled   with  an  attack  on  the   person  of  one   entrusted  with  said   property   -­‐  Ribis  did  not  attack   anyone  (bolo  still  in   sheath)  

Defense  of   US  v   Relative   Esmedia    

-­‐  Apolinar  was   watching  over  the  land   of  Gonzales   -­‐  one  midnight,   Apolinar  thought  he   saw  a  thief  (a  man   carrying  a  bundle)   -­‐  he  shouted  for   attention  but  was   ignored   -­‐  he  first  shot  in  the  air,   then  at  the  person   (Petras)  

Ciriaco  Abando,  his   wife,  and  their  son,   Santiago,  lived  in  the   jurisdiction  of  the   municipality  of   Sibalom,  in  the  barrio   of  Bongboñgan,   Province  of  Antique.   Gregorio  Esmedia,   father  of  these  two   accused,  son-­‐in-­‐law  of   Ciriaco  Abando  and   brother-­‐in-­‐law  of   Santiago  Abando,  lived   in  the  same  barrio.   These  tow  families   lived  very  near  to  each   other  and  owned   adjoining  rice  lands.   Before  this  trouble  

WON  the  two   accused  can   invoke   defense  of   relative    

YES  to  Santiago,  but   NO  to  Ciriaco.    Under   the  provisions  of  No.   5,  article  8  of  the   Penal  Code,  the  two   accused  are  exempt   from  criminal   responsibility  for   having  caused  the   death  of  Santiago   Abando,  inasmuch  as   it  has  been  shown   that  they  inflicted   these  wounds  upon   him  in  defense  of   their  father  who  was   fatally  wounded  at   the  time.  They   honestly  believed,   and  had  good  

occurred  there  had   been  a  dispute   between  these  two   families  relative  to  the   ownership  of  the  rice   land  then  occupied  by   Ciriaco  Abando.  About   2  o'clock  on  the   afternoon  of  the  24th   of  June,  1909,  Ciriaco   Abando  instructed  his   son,  Santiago,  to  go  to   a  certain  place  in  his   rice  field  to  let  out  the   water  in  order  that   they  could  plant  rice   the  said  field.  In   compliance  with  these   instructions  of  his   father,  Santiago   proceeded  to  the  place   designated,  and  while   at  work  doing  what  he   had  been  ordered  by   his  father  to  do,   Gregorio  Esmedia   appeared  on  the  scene   and  started  a  quarrel   with  Santiago.  Soon   thereafter  Gregorio   drew  a  dagger  and   stabbed  Santiago  in  the   back.  Santiago  fell  to   the  ground,  but  arose   immediately  and   attacked  Gregorio  with   his  bolo,  inflicting   several  wounds  on  the   said  Gregorio  in   consequence  of  which   he  fell  to  the  ground.   Before  this  trouble   finally  terminated  the   two  accused  and   Ciriaco  Abando   appeared  in  that   immediate  vicinity.   These  two  accused   contend  that  they  were   working  in  their  rice   field  nearby,  and  on  

grounds  upon  which   to  found  their  belief,   that  Santiago  would   continue  his  attack   upon  their  father.   They  are,  however,   guilty  of  having   caused  the  death  of   the  old  man,  Ciriaco   Abando.  When  they   attacked  and  killed   him  the  other  trouble   had  terminated  and   they  were  not  in   danger  of  bodily   harm  from  him    

seeing  Ciriaco  Abando   and  Santiago  Abando   attacking  their  father,   Gregorio,  they  started   to  the  place  to  render   their  father  assistance,   Ponciano  starting  first;   that  when  Ponciano   got  near  the  place  of   the  trouble  he  was  met   by  Ciriaco  and  Santiago   who  attacked  him  with   bolos  and  clubs  and   that  he,  Ponciano,  in   self-­‐defense,  knocked   them  both  down,  and   after  they  had  fallen   the  other  accused,   Mena  Esmedia,  arrived.   Ponciano  further   contends  that  he  did   not  use  a  bolo  in  this   fight,  but  used  a  club   only.     Avoidance   Ty   of  a   vs.People   greater   evil  

Vicky  Ty  issued  checks   that  bounced  to  pay  for   hospital  bills  for  her   mother.  She  was   charged  with  breaking   the  Bouncing  Checks   Law.  She  claims   avoidance  of  a  greater   evil  as  a  defense   (greater  evil-­‐her   mother’s  eventual   suicide  because  of  the   debasing  treatment   she  was  getting  from   the  hospital).  

WON   avoidance  of  a   greater  evil  is   applicable   here.  NO.    

For  this  to  apply:   (1)  actual  evil  must   exist,   (2)  the  injury  feared   greater  than  the  one   done  to  avoid  it,   (3)  there  be  no  other   practical  and  less   harmful  means  of   preventing  it.     The  evil  is  merely   anticipated,   therefore  not   actually  existent.  The   evil  should  also  not   be  brought  about  by   negligence.  Here,   Ty’s  failure  to  pay  the   bills  was  the  reason   for  the  “evil”.  There   were  also  other  ways   to  avoid  the  injury-­‐   the  security  or   collateral  could  have   been  in  the  form  of  

jewellery.  She  issued   the  bouncing  checks   with  full  volition.     Fulfillment   People  v.   of  Duty   Delima  

Lorenzo  Napilon   WON  killing   escaped  from  jail.   was  justified.   Policeman  Felipe   YES.   Delima  pursued  him   and  was  attacked  by   the  fugitive  Napilon   with  a  bamboo  lance.   The  pursuit  continued   and  the  policeman  shot   Napilon,  causing  his   death.  

The  killing  was  done   in  performance  of  a   duty.  Napilon’s   assault  on  policeman   Delima,  and  the  fact   that  he  was  an   escaped  convict   justified  the  means   employed  to  subdue   the  former.  

 

People  vs   Belbes  

Belbes  and  Pabon  were   tasked  to  keep  the   peace  in  a  school   prom.  According  to   Belbes,  he  came  across   the  deceased  Bataller   when  Bataller  was   drunk  and  unruly.   Because  of  the   commotion,  a  fight   ensued  between   Belbes  and  Bataller.   Belbes  ended  up   shooting  Bataller  with   his  Armalite.  

WON  the   killing  was   justified  due   to  the   performance   of  duty.  NO  

The  crime  was  only   partially  justified   because  only  the  first   requisite,  that  of  the   performance  of  duty   was  present.  The   second  requisite,   that  the  act  done   was  a  necessary   consequence,  was   not  present  because   he  did  not  have  to  kill   Bataller.  

Lawful   order  of   superior    

People  vs   Beronilla  

Beronilla,  acting  upon   the  order  of  Lt.  Arnold,   assembled  a  jury  of   bolomen  to  try  Borjal.   Borjal  was  accused  of   aiding  the  Japanese   during  war  time.  He   was  not  granted   amnesty  due  to  the   preliminary  finding  that   he  was  acting  only  due   to  personal  motives.  

WON   Beronilla  was   justified  in   having  Borjal   killed  due  to   the  lawful   order  of  Lt.   Arnold.  YES  

It  was  sufficiently   shown  that  there   was  a  standing  order   from  Lt.  Arnold  for   Beronilla  to  try  those   suspected  of  aiding   the  Japanese.  There   was  no  evidence  to   show  that  Beronilla   received  any   message  to  believe   that  the  order  has   been  withdrawn.  

   

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF