Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
STORY:
July 12, 1991: Jussi Olavi Leino invited Roland
Chapman, Maureen Hultman and other friends for
a party at his house in Forbes Park, Makati
The party started at 830pm and ended at past
midnight
They then proceeded to Roxys, a pub where
students of International School hang out. After an
hour, they transferred to Vintage, another pub in
Makati where they stayed until 3am
Thereafter, they returned to Roxys to pick up a
friend of Maureen, then went to Leinos house to
eat
After a while, Maureen requested Leino to take her
home at Campanilla St. Dasmarinas Village, Makati
City with Chapman
When they entered the village, Maureen asked
Leino to stop along Mahogany Street, about a
block away from her house in Campanilla Street,
for she wanted to walk the rest of the way for she
did not want her parents to know that she was
going home that late
Leino offered to walk wih her while Chapman
stayed in the car
Leino and Mauren started walking on the sidewalk,
and when they reached the corner of Caballero
and Mahogany Streets, a light colored Mitsubishi
box-type Lancer car, driven by Claudio Teehankee,
Jr came up from behind them and stopped on the
middle of the road
Claudio then alighted from his car, approached
them and asked, Who are you? (Show me your)
ID
Leino then took his wallet and handed to him his
ADB ID, but Claudio did not bother to look at his ID,
but instead grabbed Leinos wallet and pocketed it
Chapman saw the incident, and all of a sudden, he
manifested from behind Leino and inquired what
was going on. He stepped down and asked
Claudio, Why are you bothering us?
Claudio then pushed Chapman, dug into his shirt,
pulled out a gun and fired at him. Chapman
crumpled on the sidewalk
Leino knelt beside Chapman to assist him, but
Claudio ordered him to get up and leave Chapman
alone
Claudio then turned his ire on Leino and pointed
his gun unto him and asked: Do you want
trouble?. Leino said No. and took a step
backward
The shooting incident shocked Maureen. She got
hysterical, and screamed for help
All the while, Claudio was pointing his gun to and
from Leino to Maureen, warning her to shut up
Claudio ordered Leino to sit down on the sidewalk.
He obeyed and made no attempt to move away.
Claudio stood 2-3 meters away from him. He knew
he could not run far without being shot by Claudio
Maureen continued to be hysterical, and after a
short chase with Claudio, the latter asked him to sit
down beside Leino
ISSUES: W/N the lower court erred in finding that the killing of
Chapman and Hultman, and the shooting of Leino was attended
by treachery?
HELD:
The accused claims that treachery was not present in the killing
of Hultman and Chapman, and the wounding of Leino for it was
not shown that the gunman consciously and deliberately adopted
particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the
crime. The accused asserts that mere suddenness of attack
does not prove treachery.
The 3 Informations charged the accused with having committed
the crimes with treachery and evident premeditation. Evident
premeditation was correctly ruled out by the trial court for,
admittedly, the shooting incident was merely a casual encounter
or a chance meeting on the street since the victims were
unknown to the accused and vice-versa. It, however, appreciated
the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
On the other hand, the prosecution failed to prove treachery in
the killing of Chapman. Prosecution witness Leino established
the sequence of events leading to the shooting. He testified that
for no apparent reason, the accused suddenly alighted from his
car and accosted him and Maureen Hultman who were then
walking along the sidewalk.
Appellant questioned who they were and demanded for an I.D.
After Leino handed him his I.D., Chapman appeared from behind
Leino and asked what was going on. Chapman then stepped
down on the sidewalk and inquired from appellant what was
wrong. There and then, the accused pushed Chapman, pulled a
gun from inside his shirt, and shot him. The gun attack was
unexpected. Why did you shoot me? was all Chapman could
utter. Concededly, the shooting of Chapman was carried out
swiftly and left him with no chance to defend himself. Even then,
there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack to
insure the accomplishment of his criminal design without risk to
himself. The accused acted on the spur of the moment. Their
meeting was by chance. They were strangers to each other. The
time between the initial encounter and the shooting was short
and unbroken. The shooting of Chapman was thus the result of a
rash and impetuous impulse on the part of the accused rather
than a deliberate act of will. Mere suddenness of the attack on
the victim would not, by itself, constitute treachery. Hence,
absent any qualifying circumstance, the accused should only be
held liable for Homicide for the shooting and killing of Chapman.
As to the wounding of Leino and the killing of Hultman, treachery
clearly attended the commission of the crimes. The evidence
shows that after shooting Chapman in cold blood, the accused
ordered Leino to sit on the pavement. Maureen became
hysterical and wandered to the side of appellants car. When the
accused went after her, Maureen moved around his car and tried
to put some distance between them. After a minute or two, the
accused got to Maureen and ordered her to sit beside Leino on
the pavement. While seated, unarmed and begging for mercy,
the two were gunned down by the accused . Clearly, the accused
purposely placed his two victims in a completely defenseless
position before shooting them. There was an appreciable lapse
SISON v PEOPLE
Case Title:
G.R. Nos. 108280-83 November 16, 1995
ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE
LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO, petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 114931-33 November 16, 1995
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANNIE FERRER, accused, ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR,
JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO
TAMAYO, accused-appellants.
Citation: 250 SCRA 58
Date of Promulgation: November 16, 1995
Ponente: Puno, J
FACTS:
Prosecutions Version:
July 27, 1986: a rally was scheduled at Luneta by the
Marcos loyalists. Their permit was denied by
authorities, however, 3000 of them still gathered at
230pm on that day
Benjamin Nuega and Oliver Loyano, both members of
IBP, led the event, which started with an impromptu
singing contests, recital of prayers and delivery of
speeches in between
Col. Edgar Dula Torres asked the leaders for the pemit,
but nothing was produced, so he ordered them to
disperse within 10 mins
Marcos loyalists leaders asked for 30 minutes, but this
was refused
Atty. Lozano: turned towards his group and said,
Gulpihin niyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infitrators
Atty. Nuega: added, Sige, sige gulpihin niyo
The police then pushed the crown, and used tear gas
and truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists
scampered away but some fought back
The crowd then fled towards Maria Orosa Street and
the situation stabilized later
4pm: A small group of loyalists converged at Chinese
Garden, Phase III of Luneta where they saw Annie
Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supported of
Marcos, jogging around the fountaion. They
2.
3.
ISSUES:
1. W/N CA erred in finding that there exists
conspiracy among the principal accused
2. W/N CA erred in finding that the crime committed is
murder and not death (homicide) in tumultuous
affray
HELD:
1. NO. We find however the existence of a conspiracy
among appellants. At the time they were
committing the crime, their actions impliedly
showed a unity of purpose among them, a
concerted effort to bring about the death of
Salcedo. Where a conspiracy existed and is
proved, a showing as to who among the
conspirators inflicted the fatal wound is not required
to sustain a conviction. 67 Each of the conspirators
is liable for all acts of the others regardless of the
intent and character of their participation, because
the act of one is the act of all.
2.
1998 sps started quarrelling upon his rant about KKK not
attending to Jumawans sexual needs
Oct 16, 1998, 9PM inside the sps room, KKK changed
into a daster and fixed their bed but did not lie thereon, and
instead rested separately on a cot near their bed.
PEOPLE V JUMAWAN
COMPLAINANT:
RESPONDENT:
CITATION:
PROMUL. DATE:
PONENTE:
PP
Edgar Jumawan
G.R. No. 187495
Apr. 21, 2014
Reyes, J.
FACTS
When MMM (1st child) was born, sps put up a sari-sari store.
Several other businesses: trucking, rice mill, and hardware.
HELD
PEOPLE V BONAAGUA
COMPLAINANT:
RESPONDENT:
CITATION:
PROMUL. DATE:
PONENTE:
PP
Ireno Bonaagua y Berce
G.R. No. 188897
June 6, 2011
Peralta, J.
FACTS