Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Issue: Except for Alvin, are the other accused liable for the death
of Rolando? Was conspiracy established?
Facts:
According to the witnesses, Lolito, Francisco, Severino and Roque
were conversing when accused Mandao arrived together with a
companion. The companion pulled a gun and began shooting at
Severino and Francisco. While this was happening, accused was
holding a hand grenade and watching the carnage. He threatened
anyone who showed willingness to help the victims, motioning
agitatingly to hurl the hand grenade he was holding. Severino was hit
first, tried to run away to take cover. The companion went after
Severino and finished him off. While the gunman chased Severino,
accused stayed where he was together with the other eyewitnesses.
After the shooting, accused ran in a direction opposite that of his
unidentified companion. It was proven later on that accused was not
holding a hand grenade.
Issue:
Is conspiracy still sufficient if the only circumstances to prove
conspiracy were (1) that accused was present at the crime scene prior
to the killing, and (2) that he fled from the scene of the crime right after
the incident.
Ruling:
Conspiracy has not been sufficiently established. The mere fact
that accused arrived with the unidentified gunman does not
necessarily establish conspiracy. Likewise, the immediate flight of
the former from the scene of the crime might have been for self-
preservation.] In fact, he was seen running in a direction opposite
that taken by the unidentified assailant.
To be held guilty by reason of conspiracy, the accused must
be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. In this case, the prosecution
failed to show that appellant had joined the assailant in pursuing
the victims who were scampering away. As testified to by its
witnesses, appellant just stood there about one armslength away
from the other eyewitnesses without following the assailant in
chasing the victims.1[30] Apparently, the only semblance of overt
act that may be attributed to appellant is that he seemed ready to
assist the assailant. However, this inference is not clearly
supported by the evidence. Be that as it may, this Court has ruled
that conspiracy is not sufficiently proved where the only act
attributable to the other accused is an apparent readiness to
provide assistance, but with no certainty as to its ripening into an
overt act.
Pp vs Gargar et al, G.R. No. 110029-30. December 29, 1998
Facts:
Arsenio was sleeping in his house together with his wife and
children when they were awakened by the barking dogs. A part of
the roof of their house was on fire. Arsenio saw Gamboa fire a
shot while Gargar was beside him with a bolo tucked in his waist.
One of Arsenios children was hit. The two fled to a nearby cliff.
Ruling:
Conspiracy is present. Direct evidence not necessary. Conspiracy
may logically be inferred from acts and circumstances showing
the existence of a common design to commit the offense charged.
Facts:
Lilia was having dinner with her husband, Leodegario, and
children, when they heard dogs barking. The three accused
suddenly barged in. Rolando came first, followed by Julio who
was holding a flashlight and Florencio who entered last. Julio
focused the flashlight on Leodegarios face and seconds later,
Rolando shot Leodegario on the chest. After shooting Leodegario,
Rolando fired his gun again, this time hitting Renante, 18-year old
son of Leodegario and Lilia. Thereafter, Rolando, Julio and
Florencio left, dragging Renante out of the house. All three were
convicted. Only Florencio appealed contending that there was no
conspiracy with respect to him
Ruling:
Lilia Fuentes testimony regarding Florencios participation in the
shooting of her husband and son consisted of the following: (1) he
was one of the three men who entered her and (2) he, together
with the two other accused, dragged the body of Leodegario out
of the house after Leodegario was shot by Rolando Tamayo.
Lilias testimony contained nothing that could indicate that
Florencio directly participated in the overt act of shooting the
victims. The fact that Florencio was with the other accused when
the crime was committed is insufficient proof of conspiracy. Mere
presence at the scene of the crime does not amount to
conspiracy. The prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond
reasonable doubt. He is liable only as accomplice
Facts:
Together with his two sons (Bienvenido and Danilo), Jaime was
on their way to the farm when shots were fired. Jaime slumped to
the ground, and the brothers saw the Pedro Pacheca, Maning
Mendoza, and Lope Maralit , and Romy Pasia on an elevated
portion where the shots came from. Providing the motive and
reason for the killing of the victim the prosecution disclosed that
all the perpetrators of the crime were workers of the Corporation
where accused-appellant was the foreman and Pacheca, the
overseer; that Pacheca and accused-appellant are "bilas," both of
them being married to the daughters of Generoso Panopio, the
plantation manager; that the area being worked by the victim was
planted to palay and fruit bearing trees and that on one occasion,
Accused Pacheca (deceased), who, was the overseer of the
Corporation, and his companions were forcing the victim to leave
the land or to sell it to the Corporation. When the victim refused,
Pachecas group became angry so that a day after, five (5) huts of
the victim, including the fruit-bearing and banana trees, were
burned by Pacheca, Maning Mendoza, Proso Panopio, and
accused-appellant Maralit. Accused-appellant, together with
Pacheca (deceased) and Mendoza had also threatened to kill the
victim for his refusal to give up the area he was working on
Ruling:
SELF-DEFENSE
1. Principles:
-In self-defense, the burden of evidence shift to the accused. He must then show
by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense or in
defense of a relative or a stranger. For that purpose, he must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecutions evidence
-The requisites of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself
-Quantum of Proof: Credible, clear, and convincing evidence.
-The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety
of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary
threat
- three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or
material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least,
imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful
-two kinds of unlawful aggression: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and
(b) imminent unlawful aggression
Ruling:
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial
element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without
unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of
oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under
the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in
real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending
himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat.
Ruling: No self-defense.
Unlawful aggression by the victim is a primordial element of
self-defense; without it, there can be no self-defense, complete or
incomplete. To be appreciated, the unlawful aggression must be a
continuing circumstance or must have been existing at the time
the defense is made. A person making a defense has no more
right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has
ceased. In this case, the trial and appellate courts correctly held
that while Serafin initially attacked Nemrod with a bolo, the
unlawful aggression already ceased when the latter was able to
go inside his brothers house and the former ran away. At this
point, there was no longer any danger on his life; thus, there was
also no necessity to defend himself by pursuing and attacking
Serafin.
Ruling:
There is no defense of stranger here because the unlawful
aggression towards the barangay captain already ceased.
The trial court which convicted Gutual ruled that there was no
reasonable necessity of the means employed. Gutual just have
easily parried the alleged bolo-hacking of Maglinte, if ever such
version was true, with the use of his Garand Rifle, and could have
applied close fighting techniques which he was trained to do as a
CAFGU member, and disarm Maglinte of his bolo instead of
shooting the victim.