Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
RULING: No. The State could not penalize respondent for she is
exercising her right to freedom of religion. The free exercise of
religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental
rights in our Constitution. As Jefferson put it, it is the most
inalienable and sacred of human rights. The State’s interest in
enforcing its prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic
in order to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free exercise
claim. In the case at bar, the State has not evinced any concrete
interest in enforcing the concubinage or bigamy charges against
respondent or her partner. Thus the State’s interest only
amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced
prohibition.
There is no:
TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially
PEOPLE V SABALONES witnesses arguing that the place where the incident happened is conspirator becomes the act of another regardless of the precise
294 SCRA 751, AUGUST 31, 1998 dim and not lighted. degree of participation in the act.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias "Roling," ARTEMIO TIMOTEO
BERONGA, TEODULO ALEGARBES and EUFEMIO CABANERO, RULING: The appeal is DENIED. Costs against appellants. Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the
accused, ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias "Roling" and ARTEMIO circumstances that the crime was done at night time and that
TIMOTEO BERONGA, accused-appellants. Issue 1: Whether the prosecution witnesses and evidences are the accused hid themselves among the bamboo. Evident
credible? premeditation is also an aggravating circumstance [the accused
Yes. RTC findings were binding to court with appreciated had planned to kill the victim some days before].
Fact: Beronga, Sabalones, Alegarbes, and Cabanero were testimonies of two witnesses. There was positive identification
convicted after a shooting incident in Cebu in 1985 which led to by survivors who saw them when they peered during lulls in
the death of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, and fatal injuries gunfire. The place was well-lit, whether from post of car’s
of Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Rogelio Presores. The victims headlights. The extrajudicial confession has no bearing because
were asked to bring the car of a certain Stephen Lim who also the conviction was based on positive identification. It is binding
attended a wedding party. Nelson Tiempo drove the car with though to the co-accused because it is used as cirmustancial
Rogelio Presores. Alfredo Nardo drove the owner-type jeep evidence corroborated by one witness. The inconcistencies are
along with Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo to aid the group back to minor and inconsequential which strengthen credibility of
the party after parking the car at Lim’s house. When they testimony. Furthermore, in aberratio ictus [mistake in blow],
reached the gate, they were met with a sudden burst of gunfire. mistake does not diminish culpability; same gravity applies,
The accused were identified as the gunmen. The Court of more proper to use error in personae. Alibi cannot prevail over
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Sabalones and positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
Beronga appealed.
Crime Committed: Two counts of murder, and three counts of Issue 2: Whether the alibis are acceptable?
frustrated murder No. It was still quite near the crime scene. It is overruled by
positive identification. Using the case of People v. Nescio, Alibi is
Contention of the People: Prosecution witnesses Edwin Santos not credible when the accused-appellant is only a short distance
and Rogelio Presores testified about the shooting and identified from the scene of the crime. Furthermore, flight indicates guilt.
the faces of the accused. Presores was riding in the car that is
behind the jeep. He positively identified Sabalones as one of the
gunmen. When the gunmen fired at the car, driver Nelson Issue 3:Whether the correct penalty is imposed?
Tiempo immediately maneuvered and arrived at Major Juan No. Under Article 248 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is
Tiempo’s house from which they have escaped death. reclusion temporal in its maximum period, to death. There being
no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, aside from the
Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellants Sabalones and qualifying circumstance of treachery, the appellate court
Beronga denied their presence during the commission of the correctly imposed reclusion perpetua for murder. The CA erred
crime. Sabalones presented numerous witnesses who stated in computing the penalty for each of the three counts of
that he was sound asleep when the incident took place [since he frustrated murder. Under Article 50 of the RPC, the penalty for
got tired watching over his brother’s wake]. While Beronga frustrated felony is next lower in degree than that prescribed by
testified that he attended a cock-derby in Cebu, and was fetched law for the consummated felony. Because there are no
by his wife at 7 pm, arrived home by 10:30 pm to sleep. mitigating or aggravating conspiracy between the two accused.
Sabalones even escaped from place to place to flee from the It does not matter that the prosecution has failed to show who
wrath of Maj. Juan Tiempo, the father of the two victims. The was between the two who actually pulled the trigger that killed
defense even pointed out errors from the testimonies of the the child. They are liable as co-conspirators since the act of a