Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Urbano vs IAC Filomeno Urban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.

Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at Barangay Anonang his palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal there he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who was responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano then got angry and demanded that Javier pay for his soaked palay Urbano who hacked him again hitting Javier on the left leg with the back portion of said bolo, causing a swelling on said leg. When Urbano tried to hack and inflict further injury, his daughter embraced and prevented him from hacking Javier. Erfes together with Javier went to the police station of San Fabian to report the incident. As suggested by Corporal Torio, Javier was brought to a physician Urbano promised to pay P700.00 for the medical expenses of Javier. on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the Nazareth General Hospital had lockjaw and was having convulsions caused by tetanus toxin. In an information dated April 10, 1981, Filomeno Urbano was charged with the crime of homicide before the then Circuit Criminal Court of Dagupan City, Third Judicial District. The appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial motion was denied. Hence, this petition lower courts ruled that Javier's death was the natural and logical consequence of Urbano's unlawful act. Appellate court ruled that The claim of appellant that there was an efficient cause which supervened from the time the deceased was

wounded to the time of his death, which covers a period of 23 days , the proximate cause of the victim's death was the wound which got infected with tetanus. And the settled rule in this jurisdiction is that an accused is liable for all the consequences of his unlawful act. Appellant's allegation that the proximate cause of the victim's death was due to his own negligence in going back to work without his wound being properly healed, and lately, that he went to catch fish in dirty irrigation canals The SC rulethat Dr. Mario Meneses found no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier got infected with tetanus when after two weeks he returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with his bare hands exposing the wound to harmful elements like tetanus germs. "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause." ACQUITTED People vs hilario Carlos Reyes while relaxing with his friend in front of a store, he was subjected to a treacherous assault by two brothers and their cumpadre. It turned out the three mistakenly bent their terror on him --- the one they really planned to kill was his friend.

stab one CARLOS REYES Y LASCANO thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries which directly caused his death. saw Berong and the victim Carlos Reyes in front of the store squatting and talking to each other. Both were wearing white shirts. A little later, Berong removed his white shirt Then he saw Rodrigo handing a bolo to his brother Rodolfo and an ice-pick one foot long to their cumpadre, saying at the same time, "The one in white shirt." In a swift, sudden motion, the cumpadre bluntly stabbed Carlos Reyes on the chest, arose the suspicion of the brothers Hilario who feared that Danilo would blow the whistle on them. saw Greg frequenting the house of Danilo. . On April 22, 1991 at about 8 o'clock in the evening, Rodrigo waited in ambush and hacked him repeatedly on the head, and left and right arms. Rodrigo stated that The reason Danilo might have dragged him in this case was because the former harbored a grudge against him. Trial court convicted him as principal of murder. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO STAR WITNESS DANILO MANZANARES' TESTIMONY WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY FABRICATED AND REHEARSED. Rodrigo interposed this appeal STAR WITNESS DANILO MANZANARES TESTIMONY WAS UNCORROBORATED BY THOSE WHO WERE LIKEWISE PRESENT AT THE STORE. COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ALIBI OF THE ACCUSED THAT HE WAS WITH THE ROVING TEAM OF BARANGAY TANODS ON THAT FATEFUL NIGHT The evidence also sufficiently demonstrates the existence of conspiracy in the execution of the crime If an express or implied conspiracy is proven, then all the conspirators may be regarded as co-

principals regardless of the extent of their participation in the execution of the crime. Their liability is collective or joint.5 According to Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally or logically result therefrom 7 In legal contemplation, the act of one is the act of all.8 Hence, all the three accused are liable as principals for the death of the victim Carlos Reyes . The rule is well-settled that delay in reporting what a witness knows about the crime does not render his testimony false Appellant next puts the prosecution to task for its failure to present other witnesses who could have corroborated the testimony of star witness Danilo We have constantly ruled that the testimony of a single witness if credible would already suffice to sustain a conviction.17 Basic is the rule that positive identification prevails over alibi.22 GUILTY of MURDER qualified by treachery People vs tadeo Michael Tadeo was drinking with the deceased Mayolito Cabatu after five (5) hours of imbibing alcohol, Mayolito was so dead drunk that he excused himself and proceeded to the pavement adjacent to Nicomedes Cabacungan's house Mayolito shouted "barako," apparently to tease accused-appellant and titillate him into a "fight" Drunk and wobbly too, accused-appellant Michael Tadeo instantaneously grabbed a beer bottle and tried to whack Mayolito with it on the head. But Ricky Cardona and Florencia Cabatu quickly intervened to prevent accused-appellant from inflicting harm upon Mayolito. Accused-appellant briskly went home exclaiming, "Aguray kadta a!" which means "Wait, I will come back!" Then he hastily returned clutching a .38 cal. revolver and

confronted Mayolito, Ricky and Florencia why they were intervening. He shot mayolito 6 times and went back to his house to reload his gun and then shot florencia on her left buttock. barangay kapitan of Sto. Domingo, Quirino, Isabela, reported the crime to the police precinct The father yielded a gun to the policemen which he said was the weapon used in the crime, while accused-appellant turned himself in.i[5] Michael Tadeo was accordingly charged with murder for the fatal shooting of Mayolito Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23-498), frustrated murder for the injury sustained by Florencia Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23-494), and violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, PD 1866, or qualified illegal possession of firearm, i.e offered self-defense as his version of the incident. the court convicted accused-appellant of the crimes charged and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua accused-appellant but questions the appreciation of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and claims that he should instead be held guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide only Further, he insists that the trial court erroneously disregarded the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in imposing the proper penalties, including the absence of any evidence indicating that the gun he used was unlicensed. the execution of the criminal act must come with sober thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. accused-appellant cannot be accused of treachery. Under this state, he did not have the time nor the proper disposition to reflect on the means or mode of attack for it to be said that he deliberately and consciously pulled out his gun and fired Furthermore, the heated exchanges between him and the deceased prior to the attack must have placed the latter on his guard, hence, we cannot rule that Mayolito Cabatu was caught

completely by surprise when accused-appellant took up arms against him. For there to be treachery by reason of the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack, there must have been no warning of any sort to the deceased or offended party. This crime which has been erroneously labeled as "frustrated murder" lacks the twin elements of aleviosa: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and, (b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. As shown above, the actual nature of the wound on the left buttock of Florencia Cabatu indicated that it was not fatal nor that it was infected with tetanus at the time it was inflicted. Hence, we cannot conclude that all the acts of execution had been performed by accusedappellant to kill the hapless woman, for to classify the crime in the frustrated stage, the rule is that the probable death of the victim must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused The trial court also erred in not crediting accusedappellant with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender requisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, namely: (a) the offender was not actually arrested; (b) he surrendered to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and, (c) his surrender was voluntary.ii[ "[i]f homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance," where murder or homicide was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance.iii[18] The use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be considered however as a special aggravating circumstance in Crim. Case No. 23-498 and Crim. Case No. 23-494. For one, it was not alleged as an aggravating circumstance in the Informations for murder and frustrated murder which is necessary under our present Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure.iv[19] Moreover, even if alleged, the circumstance cannot be retroactively applied to prejudice accusedappellant we find accused-appellant guilty of HOMICIDE and, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender In Crim. Case No. 23-494 we find accusedappellant guilty of ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE and, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, AFFIRMED. The conviction of accused-apellant Michael Tadeo in Crim. Case No. 23-499 for illegal possession of firearm used in the commission of murder and frustrated murder, i.e., violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, PD 1866, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the accused is ACQUITTED

i[5]

Id., p. 8. People v. Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, 14 December 2001; People v. Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, 17 October 2001; People v. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, 6 July 2000, 335 SCRA 232. iii[18] People v. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 133489 & 143970, 15 January 2002. iv[19] People v. Candido, G.R. Nos. 134072-73, 10 June 2002.
ii[16]

Intod vs ca attempted murder. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed. . Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City One witness testified that before the five men left the premises, they shouted: "We will kill you (the witness) and especially Bernardina Palangpangan and we will come back if (sic) you were not injured". 2 After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder. Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible. Respondent People of the Philippines argues that the crime was not impossible. Instead, the facts were sufficient to constitute an attempt and to convict Intod for attempted murder. Respondent alleged that there was intent. Further, in its Comment to the Petition, respondent pointed out that: The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment (Art. 4(2), Revised Penal Code), but due to a cause or accident other than petitioner's and his accused's own spontaneous desistance . To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. , factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime . It is well settled principle of criminal law in this country that where the criminal result of an attempt is not accomplished simply because of an obstruction in the way of the thing to be operated upon, and these facts are unknown to the aggressor at the time, the criminal attempt is committed. . . factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility, on the other hand, is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen