Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Murder by Treachery

    Hochgeladen von

    Anonymous NqaBAy
    151 Ansichten3 Seiten
    1) The appellant, Zaldy Garcia y Ancheta, was convicted of murdering Major Opina through treachery. He argued on appeal that (1) the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) treachery was not established, and (3) voluntary surrender should have been considered a mitigating circumstance. 2) The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the appellant admitted to the shooting in open court, establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 3) The Court also found that treachery was present, as the appellant had ample time to arm himself and lie in wait before firing from a concealed position, ensuring his safety and leaving the victim no chance

    Originalbeschreibung:

    People of the Phil. Vs. Zaldy Garcia Y Ancheta

    Originaltitel

    People of the Phil. Vs. Zaldy Garcia Y Ancheta

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    DOC, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    1) The appellant, Zaldy Garcia y Ancheta, was convicted of murdering Major Opina through treachery. He argued on appeal that (1) the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) treachery was not established, and (3) voluntary surrender should have been considered a mitigating circumstance. 2) The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the appellant admitted to the shooting in open court, establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 3) The Court also found that treachery was present, as the appellant had ample time to arm himself and lie in wait before firing from a concealed position, ensuring his safety and leaving the victim no chance

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als DOC, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    151 Ansichten3 Seiten

    Murder by Treachery

    Hochgeladen von

    Anonymous NqaBAy
    1) The appellant, Zaldy Garcia y Ancheta, was convicted of murdering Major Opina through treachery. He argued on appeal that (1) the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) treachery was not established, and (3) voluntary surrender should have been considered a mitigating circumstance. 2) The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the appellant admitted to the shooting in open court, establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 3) The Court also found that treachery was present, as the appellant had ample time to arm himself and lie in wait before firing from a concealed position, ensuring his safety and leaving the victim no chance

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als DOC, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 3

    PeopleofthePhil.Vs.

    ZaldyGarciaYAncheta
    G.R.No.174479,June17,2008
    DigestedCase(CaseDigest)inCriminalLaw
    Crimeofmurderqualifiedbytreachery

    Facts:
    TheprosecutionchargedtheaccusedappellantZaldyGarciayAnchetaforthemurderofMajorOpina
    qualifiedbytreachery,attendedbythespecialaggravatingcircumstanceofuseofanunlicensedfirearm,
    undertwoseparateinformations.ThechargeforviolatingR.A.6425isnolongerunderreviewafterthe
    RTCacquittedtheappellantongroundofreasonabledoubt.Onarraignment,theappellantpleadednot
    guiltytothechargeslaid.
    OnAugust26,2003,theRTCconvictedtheaccusedofthecrimeofmurder.Thecasewaselevatedto
    thisCourtonautomaticappealbutwasremandedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA)inaccordancewithPeople
    v.Mateo.TheCAdecisionofMay31,2006affirmedwithmodificationtheRTCdecision.
    Inhisbrief,theappellantarguesthattheRTCerred
    1.inconvictinghimaftertheprosecutionfailedtoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt;
    2.inappreciatingthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery;
    3.infailingtorecognizethemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrenderinimposingthepenalty.

    Issue:
    Shouldtheappealbegranted?

    Ruling:
    No.SufficiencyofProsecutionEvidence
    Theappellantcontends,ashisfirstpoint,thathisguilthasnotbeenprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt;no
    onereallytestifiedthatitwashewhoshotMajorOpina.

    Weclarifyattheoutsetthatproofbeyondreasonabledoubtisnotsolelyestablishedbydirectevidence.In
    theabsenceofdirectevidence,theprosecutionmaypresentcircumstantialevidencethat,undergiven
    conditions,maymeettheevidentiarystandardof"proofbeyondreasonabledoubt"incriminalcases.
    Circumstantialevidenceissufficientforconvictionif:1)thereismorethanonecircumstance;2)thefacts
    fromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareproven;and3)thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuch
    astoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.Theconclusionsthatcanbedrawnfromthechainof
    provencircumstancesratherthantheirnumberarematerialtoprovetheguiltoftheaccused.Whatis
    paramountisthatfactsbeprovenfromwhichinferencesmaybedrawnwithallthecircumstancesbeing
    consistentwithoneotherthattheaccusedisguiltyandthisinferenceisconsistentwithnoother
    conclusionexceptthatofguilt.
    TherecordsofthiscaseshowthatevidenceofwhoactuallyshotMajorOpinaisnotlacking.Infact,the
    evidenceisthestrongestthereis,astheappellanthimselfadmittedinopencourtthathewastheonewho
    wieldedthegunandpulledthetrigger.

    ThePresenceofTreachery
    Thereistreacherywhentheoffendercommitsanyofthecrimesagainstpersons,employingmeans,
    methodorformswhichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoensureitsexecution,withoutrisktotheoffender,
    arisingfromthedefensethattheoffendedpartymightmake.
    Toconstitutetreachery,twoconditionsmustconcur:(1)theemploymentofmeans,methodsormannerof
    executionthatwouldensuretheoffenderssafetyfromanydefenseorretaliatoryactonthepartofthe
    offendedparty;and(2)theoffendersdeliberateorconsciouschoiceofthemeans,methodormannerof
    execution.
    Theappellantseekstonegatetheseelementsoftreacherybyclaimingtohaveactedoutoffearand
    nervousness;hewasallegedlyunderthesestressesbecausepersonswhowerearmed,dressedincivilian
    clothesandwhodidnotidentifythemselvesasmembersofthepolice,scaledhisfence.Hesimplyreacted
    totheintrusionandhadnoplantoshootoneofthosewhosoapproachedhishouse.Hence,heconcludes
    thattherewasnotreacheryandthekillingcouldnothavebeenattendedbythisqualifyingcircumstance.
    Hepositsthatthecourtaquoshouldhaverecognizedallthese.
    Whataretheundisputedfacts?
    First,itisnotdisputedthattheappellantwentoutofhishousetoseeforhimselfthetwomenwhocame.
    Second,byhisowntestimony,hereturnedtohishousetogethisgun.Third,noimmediateshootingtook
    place.Thetwopolicemenstillcalledforbackupassistance,waitedandconferredonwhattodo,andonly
    afterthebackupcamedidtheyscalethefence.Twentyminutesmusthaveelapsedfromthetimethe

    appellantwentinsidethehouseuptothetimeoftheactualshooting.Fourth,MajorOpinawasalmostat
    thedooroftheappellantshousewhentheshotthatkilledhimrangout.Fifth,theshotcamefrominside
    thehousethroughaclosedchickenwirescreendoorthateffectivelyhidamanfrominsidethehousefrom
    someonefromtheoutside.Sixth,thefirstandfatalshotwassudden,immediatelyhittingMajorOpina.
    WeconcludefromalltheseestablishedfactsthatindeedtreacheryhadattendedthekillingofMajor
    Opina.Whiletheoriginalinitiativeoriginatedfromthepolicewhosoughttoarresttheappellant,the
    lattersresponsewasanattackwhichshowed,byitsmethodandmanner,thatitdidnotcomeatthespur
    ofthemoment.TheappellantwasdulyforewarnedabouttheidentitiesofMajorOpinaandSPO4Oria.
    Notonlywasheforewarned,hehadampletimetoreflectonwhattodo.Hisimmediateresponsewasto
    armhimselfandtolieinwaitinambush,literallyandtofirefromapositionofconcealmentand
    relativesafetyatthetwopolicemenwhowerefullyexposedandintheopenatthetime.Theshooting
    distanceofalittlemorethanametereffectivelygaveMajorOpinanochance.This,inourview,isa
    classicexampleoftreacheryunderthedefinitionoftheRevisedPenalCodeoftheterm.

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen