Crim 2 Case Digests

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29 Criminal Law 2; RPC – Art. 246; Parricide People vs. Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739 [L-50905] ((Sept. 23, 1982) Facts: A complaint for murder was filed in the Municipal Court of Sariaya, Quezon, on July 19, 1976, by Station Commander Sisenando P. Alcantara, Jr. against Francisco Jumawan, Cesario Jumawan, Manuel Jumawan and Presentacion Jumawan for the death of Rodolfo Magnaye. (Stabbing him with a bolo in the chest) Rodolfo Magnaye was married to Presentacion Jumawan but they had been living separately from each other. (During the trial Presentacion admitted her marriage to Rodolfo. – simper praesumitur matrimonio) The Station Commander can perhaps be excused for not accusing Presentacion of parricide but when the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance (RTC) of Quezon where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1408, the Provincial Fiscal perpetuated the mistake by filing an information for murder against all the accused. Issue: Whether or not Presentacion Jumawan- Magnaye should be convicted of Parricide? Ruling: No, Wife of victim cannot be convicted of parricide if charged only with murder. However, relationship must be considered aggravating even if not alleged in the information.— Presentacion should have been accused of parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the 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 as an aggravating circumstance should be assigned against the appellants. True, relationship is inherent in parricide, but Presentacion stands convicted of murder. And as to the others, the relationships of father-in-law and brother-in-law aggravate the crime. Presentacion should have been accused of parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the 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 as an aggravating circumstance should be assigned against the appellants. True, relationship is inherent in parricide, but Presentacion stands convicted of murder. And as to the others, the relationships of father-in-law and brotherin-law aggravate the crime. The penalty for murder with an aggravating circumstances is death. However, for lack of necessary votes, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Name Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29 Criminal Law 2; RPC Art. 247; Death Under Exceptional Circumstances People vs. Oyanib, 354 SCRA 196, [No. G.R. No. 130634-35](March 12, 2001) Facts: Manolito and Tita are husband and wife and decided to live separately. Manolito retained custody of their two (2) children.I mmediately after the separation, Tita stayed at her friend. Afterwards, she transferred to the Lladas residence, located at Purok 3, G. Tambacan, Iligan City, and rented the second floor. The rented space consisted mainly of a sala with one adjoining room. It was arranged in a manner that if one enters the main entrance door, one is immediately led to the sala and from the sala, directly to the door of the adjoining room. In the evening of September 4, 1995, after supper, his daughter Desilor handed Manolito a letter. The letter mentioned that his son Julius failed in two (2) subjects and invited his parents to a meeting at the school. Because he had work from 8:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon the next day, Manolito went to Titas house to ask her to attend the school meeting in his behalf. Upon reaching Titas rented place, he heard sounds of romance (kissing) coming from the inside. He pried open the door lock using a hunting knife. He caught his wife Tita and Jesus having sexual intercourse. Jesus was on top of Tita and his pants were down to his knees. Upon seeing him, Jesus kicked Manolito in the cheek. Manolito immediately stabbed Jesus. Though Jesus was 59 in height and weighed about 70 kg., the suddenness of the assault caused him to lose his balance and fall down. Manolito took advantage of this opportunity and stabbed Jesus in the stomach. Tita left the room upon seeing Manolito, only to come back armed with a Tanduay bottle. She hit Manolito in the head, while at the same time shouting kill him Jake, kill him Jake. In the commotion, Manolito stabbed Jesus, hitting him in the abdomen. Jesus fell down and Manolito stabbed him again. Meanwhile, Tita stabbed Manolito in the arm with the broken Tanduay bottle. This angered Manolito and he stabbed Tita in the left breast. He stabbed her three (3) more times in different parts of her body. Tita fell near the lifeless body of her paramour. It was at this point that Edgardo, the owner of the house Tita was renting, appeared from the ground floor and inquired about what had happened. Manolito told Edgardo not to interfere because he had nothing to do with it. The RTC charged him of the crimes of homicide and parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Manolito Oyanib then after interposed an appeal from the joint decision of the trial court to the Supreme Court. Accused admitted the killings. He argued that he killed them both under the exceptional circumstances provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. He raised several errors allegedly committed by the trial court, which boiled down to the basic issue of whether accused is entitled to the exceptional privilege under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. He questioned the trial courts appreciation of the facts and the evidence, contending that it ignored and overlooked vital pieces of physical evidence material to the defense of the accused, like the photograph of the lifeless body of Jesus. Accused contends that the photograph graphically showed that Jesus pants were wide open, unzipped and unbuttoned, revealing that he was not wearing any underwear, lending credence to his defense that he caught his wife and her paramour in the act of sexual intercourse. On the other hand, the Solicitor General submitted that accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he killed the victims under the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the trial court did not err in denying him the exempting privilege under the Article Issue: Wether or not Manolito Oyanib’s acts fall under Art. 247 of the RPC? Ruling: Yes, The death caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity—the killing by the husband of his wife must concur with her flagrant adultery.—Having admitted the killing, it is incumbent upon accused to prove the exempting circumstances to the satisfaction of the court in order to be relieved of any criminal liability Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the following essential elements for such a defense: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. Accused must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise his defense would be untenable. “The death caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity. Simply put, the killing by the husband of his wife must concur with her flagrant adultery.” What actually happened was that accused chanced upon Jesus at the place of his wife. He saw his wife and Jesus in the act of having sexual intercourse. Blinded by jealousy and outrage, accused stabbed Jesus who fought off and kicked the accused. He vented his anger on his wife when she reacted, not in defense of him, but in support of Jesus. Hence, he stabbed his wife as well several times. Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza surrendered to the police when a call for him to surrender was made. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 02, Iligan City in Criminal Cases Nos. II-6012 and II-6018. Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza was sentenced to two (2) years and four (4) months of destierro. He shall not be permitted to enter Iligan City, nor within a radius of one hundred (100) kilometers from Iligan City.

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo

Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2; RPC Art. 248; Murder People vs. Nueva y Samaro, 570 SCRA 449 (November 3, 2008) Facts: The prosecution charged the appellant, Porpirio Maribuhok (Porpirio) and John Doe, one of the unidentified assailants, before the RTC with the crime of murder. Of the three accused only the appellant Dante Nueva y Samaro was apprehended. He was convicted of murder qualified by treachery for the death of Virgilio Revollido and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He appealed his conviction to the CA and the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal. Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation was present and proven to correctly convict the appellant for murder? Ruling: No, Treachery is not presumed; The circumstances surrounding the murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself; Two conditions to constitute treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make. To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and (2) the offender’s deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner of execution.

Prior to the killing, the victim was being chased by John Doe. Upon reaching 4th Avenue, he passed in front of the appellant and Porpirio who, at that time, were both standing near the corner of 4th Avenue. As the victim passed, the appellant held his left hand and led him towards the other side of the road. There, Porpirio struck the victim on the head with a dos por dos causing him to fall to his knees. The appellant thereafter boxed the victim until John Doe came. They then stabbed him, John Doe delivering the first blow from the back and the appellant doing it from the front. There is no evidence indicating that the appellant and his co-accused made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself. There was nothing in the record that shows that the three (3) assailants carefully considered the mode or method of attack to ensure the killing of the victim. While the intent to kill was patent, the manner of attack did not appear to have been deliberately adopted.

Abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the victim. To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force, or force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor so that the superiority of strength is notoriously advantageous for the latter who took advantage of this superiority in committing the crime.

The records reveal that the lone and unarmed victim was held by the appellant by hand and led to the other side of the road; struck on the head by Porpirio; boxed by the appellant; and then successively stabbed by John Doe and by the appellant. Clearly, the victim was in no position to defend himself; he was overwhelmed by the combined efforts of all three (3) assailants who did not only enjoy superiority in number, but also of weapons. This numerical and physical disparity was manifest in the victims various abrasions on the shoulders and knees; incised wounds on the forehead, chest, hand and back; and stab wounds on the neck and chest. That the assailants took advantage of their superior number and combined strength as against the relatively defenseless victim can be clearly discerned from these circumstances.

For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect on the consequences of his act. Significantly, the prosecution did not even attempt to prove the presence of these elements;

Alfonso, the principal eyewitness, was not even aware of any prior incident or any possible reason that could have led the appellant and his co-accused to attack the victim.

The proper penalty should be murder qualified by abuse of superior strength is penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659) with reclusion perpetua to death. While treachery and evident premeditation were alleged in the Information, these circumstances were not adequately proven. In the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the felony, the courts a quo correctly sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2). of the Revised Penal Code.

The Supreme Court affirmed Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00727 with modifications.

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29 Criminal Law 2; RPC Art. 248; Murder (People vs. Alban, 245 SCRA 549) Facts: The brothers Robert Alban and Demetrio Alban appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44 of Dagupan City finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder of one Roberto Salinas.

The relevant facts as found by the trial court are based mainly on the testimony of the prosecution's sole eyewitness, Joseph Salinas, thirteen-year old son of the victim Roberto Salinas. Joseph testified that from October 1990 to 31 July 1991 he was living with his father Roberto and the latter's common law wife, Fe Gutierrez, at No. 36 Nibaliw East, San Fabian, Pangasinan. On 31 July 1991, after they had gone fishing, Roberto decided to have a bottle of beer at a nearby sari-sari store. Joseph Proceeded to go home. At about 6:00 in the afternoon, Fe Gutierrez instructed Joseph to fetch his father. When Joseph was about seven meters away from the sari-sari store, he saw his father being attacked by four men. Joseph saw Robert and Demetrio stabbing his father while the other two men restrained his hands. During his direct examination, Joseph demonstrated how the left hand of his father was squeezed as the two accused stabbed him. An unidentified person, Arthur Doe, stabbed the middle back part of the victim. Thereafter, when Roberto was slumped prostrate against the wall, he was shot at the left temple by a person who has not, as yet, been apprehended. Issue: Whether or not there was treachery to qualify the crime to murder? YES Whether or not there was cruelty? NO Ruling: 1) The fact that Roberto was able to momentarily run away from his assailants does not negate the element of treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 20 In this case, at the time that Robert and Demetrio stabbed Roberto, who was not armed, his left hand was held and twisted behind him by the two (2) other assailants, effectively rendering Roberto helpless and unable to either flee or ward off his attackers. This was clearly intended by them to ensure the success of their assault without risk to themselves. Additionally, Roberto was shot at the temple when he was already slumped against the wall, grievously wounded and totally defenseless. From all indications, the mode of attack adopted by appellants and their co-assailants qualifies the killing to murder. 2.) Dr. Manalo testified that stab wounds number 2, 3 and 4 caused the death of Roberto and that the other wounds, even the gunshot wound, were in fact unnecessary to produce death of the victim. The Court is not convinced that cruelty had been sufficiently shown on the basis of this finding alone. Cruelty cannot be appreciated in the absence of any showing that appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The mere fact that wounds in excess of what was indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the sufferings of the victim. The appealed decision of the trial court is affirmed except with respect to the finding of the presence of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance which is deleted.