In a democracy, an accussed person has the privilege of protected rights. It rests on the concept that he or she is merely an accused and not a criminal until guilt has been proven.
PGC students from 1LM3 are tasked to write THEIR individual case digests as pers class instruction.
This list is one of our class academic outcomes which is to create a small archive of jurisprudence relating to constitutional law. Being able to submit required posts merits additional grades for recitations and possible considerations for the final grade.
This activity will also constitute our meeting for wednesday, March 6, 2013, in order to accomodate 1LM3's schedule adjustment for that day.
Online classroom of Ronald Castillo y Maglaqui, Professor of Political Science at the University of Santo Tomas - Faculty of Arts and Letters. But for the time being, starting 2022, this blog serves as a student's public notebook of thoughts while he undertakes his international PhD in Asia Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Reach him through rmcastillo@ust.edu.ph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSantiago, Ranie Rafael m.
DeleteG.R. No. L-78852
June 5, 1989
174 SCRA 1; Second Edition
People vs. Eglipa
Facts:
Guillermo Eglipa and Rudy Valiente were jointly accused for the killing of Ricardo Gardeleza, a Minister of the Iglesia ni Kristo, in Barrio Talaba, on August 16, 1982. Information was filed by 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cavite with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite at Bacoor on the December of 1982. On January 27, 1987, Rudy Valiente was released in due course after his acquittal by the Decision of the trial court. Gerson Samson was the prosecution sole testimony in proving the appellant’s involvement but was not given credence due to his testimonies’ inconsistencies. However, the trial court convicted the appellant guilty on the basis of his two separate extra-judicial confessions, both made without the presence of legal counsel, at the Bacoor Police Station on August 17, 1982, and at the Criminal Investigation Service, Camp Crame, Quezon City on September 10, 1982. Hence, the appellant appealed on the Supreme Court and raised on the sole issue of the admissibility of his two extra-judicial confessions. The trial court noted that both of the extra-judicial confessions was made without the presence of counsel but it considered that the confessions were made on the year of 1982, before the doctrine about the inadmissibility of statements as evidence when no legal counsel is around was made(April 23, 1983; Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 538). However, in other cases where this court was confronted regarding the same issue of admissibility, they declared it inadmissible. In addition, the appellant was able to prove that on executing both extra-judicial confessions, he was forced and under duress.
Judicial Question: Is a statement without the presence of a legal counsel admissible even before the doctrine of "inadmissibility of statements as evidence when no legal counsel is around" was promulgated?
Resolution:
The trial court noted that both of the extra-judicial confessions was made without the presence of counsel but it considered that the confessions were made on the year of 1982, before the doctrine about the inadmissibility of statements as evidence when no legal counsel is around was made(April 23, 1983; Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 538). However, in other cases where this court was confronted regarding the same issue of admissibility, they declared it inadmissible. In addition, the appellant was able to prove that on executing both extra-judicial confessions, he was forced and under duress.
Considering the premises, and finding no other evidence to sustain appellant’s conviction, the court acquits appellant Guillermo Eglipa on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Yu, Geraldine
ReplyDeleteTitle: The people of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Edgardo Canela Y Araneta, accused-appellant. GR. No. 97086, May 8, 1992. 208 SCRA 842
Facts:
It has said to be that a particular Edgar was selling marijuana at the corner of Claro M. Recto St., Lucena City. Immediately after hearing this, a team of Narcotics Command (NARCOM) went to conduct a “buy-bust” operation to be held on May 17, 1988. Agents who composed of this were Sgts. Dominador Cruz, Elpidio Anasta, Romoncito Yeban and Iluminado Evangelista.
Acting as a pretend buyer is Sgt. Dominador Cruz, this mission order was issued by Captain Rodolfo Basco of the Quezon NARCOM. The team then moved into strategic places near the Supreme Transit Terminal where the sale was to take place. Across the said place is a billiard hall where a civilian informer contacted the accused and said that the two parties conversed. After this, Sgt. Cruz approached the accused-appellant and asked him if he could but two tea bag sized marijuana. The accused-appellant then left for about 3 minutes and went back with the said drugs and gave it to Sgt. Cruz. The pretend buyer of course gave him some money amounting to two marked ten-peso bills. After which the trade has been made, a certain Sgt. Elpidio Anasta approached the two and searched the accused-appellant recovering the marked money given by the pretend buyer, a tea bag sized marijuana, a stick of marijuana cigarette and rolling papers.
The accused-appellant however disagreed with the facts given by the team.
Resolution:
The accused-appellant, Edgardo Canella was heard innocent. During the hearing, and cross-examinations the facts and details asked to each of the sergeants who were with the “buy-bust” operation held during May 17, 1988 was very inconsistent. Each of them had different answers on the time and most especially with the materials that were said they have recovered from the accused-appellant. This only shows that the accusations made against the accused-appellant were therefore fake. To add to that, the court found a violation on the officers who were part of the operation for they have failed to inform the accused-appellant his rights under the constitution. From the moment a person is arrested, he shall be informed of his rights under the constitution to remain silent as to be stated by the arresting officer. However, in this case sgt. Cruz failed to do this act. It is the duty of the arresting officer to inform and to make sure that the arrested person to understand what the constitution meant. Decision reversed.
Question:
The matter of false accusation and not being able to inform the accused-appellant is not the only violation sergeant Cruz has made. Do you think that treating such person so harsh, bashing him with rude words is the right thing an officer would do?
CABALONGA, ROANNA CATHRICE, B.
ReplyDeleteTITLE: United States vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 448)
FACTS:
The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at “Officers’ quarters of Fort McKinley. The defendant, Ah Chong, who had received unnecessary noises for the night, August 14, 1908, at about 10 o’ clock, was suddenly awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the room. He was scared because there had been several robberies happening in their area and it was all dark inside the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, “Who is there?” He heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. The defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out: “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” He was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair and he thought that the blow had been inflicted by the person who had forced the door open, whom he supposed to be a burglar. Since he kept a common kitchen knife under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate (Pascual Gualberto). The roommate, Pascual, eventually died.
JUDICIAL QUESTIONS:
1. Whether or not, Ah Chong has the intent to commit the murder.
2. Whether or not, Ah Chong is liable for the death of his roommate.
RESOLUTION:
The court held that, No, Ah Chong has no intention to commit the murder and that Ah Chong is not liable for the death of his roommate for he was not found guilty rather innocent and therefore he was acquitted. The decision or judgment of the lower court was reversed. The case was a “mistake of fact” resulting to self-defense justified under Article 11 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Alyssa Gomez-1LM3
ReplyDeleteROMEO POSADAS ZAMORA, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
The Intelligence Task Force of the Integrated National Police (INP) was conducting surveillance in Magallanes Street, Davao City on October 16, 1986. Police officers Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar were in Rizal Memorial Colleges and they saw a suspicious looking man who was Posadas Zamora (petitioner) carrying a “buri” bag. The officers moved towards the petitioner and informed him that they were police officers. The petitioner attempted to escape with the buri bag but was restrained by the two officers then they checked the “buri” of the petitioner and saw dangerous weapons namely rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas) grenade, two pieces of caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver and two live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. The officers brought him to the police station so as to present the licence of the weapons he was carrying but the petitioner cannot provide a licence so he was brought to the Davao Metrodiscom Office. The petitioner pleaded not guilty but was founded by the RTC guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions (RA 8294) on Oct. 8, 1987.
Judicial Question: Is the warrantless search on the accused valid?
Resolution:
The petitioner’s side was arguing that a warrantless search of the Buri bag that he was carrying was unlawful because it must follow the ruling under the Section 12, Rule 136 of the rules of court wherein after a lawful arrest an officer can search for weapons or any kind of proof for the offense committed without search warrant. In this ground the evidence against the petitioner should not be admissible since it was obtained unlawfully and there was a violation of his rights.
However the Solicitor General compared the case of Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and the US Supreme Court held that "a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for the purpose of investigating possible criminal behaviour even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest." He justified that even if the search was not done after a lawful arrest since at first there was no probable cause to make an arrest, there was a basis of probable cause to search the bag given that the petitioner was acting suspiciously and when the officers came to him he tried to escape with the buri bag there was a probable cause that there were illegal contents inside the bag given the reason that he tried to escape with it. This gave the officers the right to examine the bag and it may be too late to stop the possible crime if the officers shall first get a search warrant for the investigation of the buri bag.
It was decided that there was no unreasonable search and seizure that took place. The petition was denied and the petitioner was guilty of illegal possession of firearms.
Angiela Reziel P. Emen
ReplyDelete1LM3
TITLE: DANILO B. PARADA, complainant, vs. JUDGE LORENZO B. VENERACION, Regional Trial Court, Branch47, Manila, respondent
JUDICIAL QUESTIONS:
• Why did the trial did not assure the duly notification to Parada?
FACTS:
• Parada had not been duly notified of the absentia are wanting clearly.
• It is said in the case that Parada violated requisites of a valid trial in absentia which are the accused has already been arraigned; has been duly notified by the trial and failure to appear is unjustifiable.
• June 3, 6, 7 and 8, 1994 is the date that Parada’s failure to appear in the hearing by the absence of a valid service of notice of hearing to him is justified.
• Judge Veneracion should have sent the notice of hearing dated April 27, 1994 to Parada’s counsel were he should have already taken cognizance of the new address.
• It is said in the Procedural Due process that the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard. With that, Parada must be given a chance to defend himself towards the issue about the unclaimed duly of notice that should be given to him.
• Judge Veneracion exhibited the ignorance of gross that degree which the court cannot countenance.
• Danilo B. Parada filed a case against the respondent judge for his gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority and rendering unjust and erroneous interlocutory orders and judgement.
• Judge Veneracion was fined in the amount of P10, 000.00 with a warning was fined by the Office of the Court Administrator.
RESOLUTION:
In resolving matters in litigation, judges should endeavour assiduously to ascertain the facts and the facts and the applicable laws. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion is FINED P10, 000.00 for disregarding Parada’s right to procedural due process and for showing gross ignorance of the law, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of a similar act in the future will dealt with more severely.
Works Cited
(1997). Parada vs. Veneracion. In SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED (pp. 371-379). Manila.
Honrales, Kimberly Ann I.
ReplyDeleteTitle of the case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MOISES BACAMANTE y ORDANIZA, accused-appellant.
Judicial Question: Whether or not the confessions (extrajudicial and circumstantial) were admissible.
Facts:
Guiding principles of this case are:
1. Admissibility of extrajudicial confession.
o When given voluntarily without fear or threat of violence with an “effective and vigilant” counsel present
Appellant was accused of robbery and homicide in January 29, 1986 at No. 1271-73 Pedro Gil St., Paco Manila. At around 8:30 in the evening of December 19, 1985, Chua Huat owner of Chua Huat Enterprises of which appellant worked as an all-around serviceman, was stabbed and puncture wounds which penetrated the lungs and heart and lacerated wounds on the head. His adopted son, Fernando Ngo, being informed that there was smoke emitting from their store went to inform his father only to find him lying on his own pool of blood and was poured paint thinner. Ngo testified that an amount of P10,000 pesos was missing from the store’s cash register and vault and that an electrical cord connected to the flat iron was the cause of the smoke. About two meters away from the body was an axe with dried blood. On the morning of December 20, 1985 all employees reported back to work except the accused thus having Pfc. Rodolfo Kalaquian suspect Bacamante for the crime. A team of police from Western Police District was dispatched to Barrio Lingkod, Maribojoc, Bohol which is the hometown of the accused. Upon seeing the police team the accused ran to the back of his house and when Pfc. Kalaquian fired warning shots, the former ran further to a grassy area. The police asked the parents of Bacamante to talk out the accused to surrender and was successful. Accused was brought to Manila with his brother Teotimo to accompany him. Upon extrajudicial confession, accused admitted his guilt to Patrolman Salbador Fradejas of the WPD Homicide Station. The latter testified that a certain Atty. Gilbert Zulueta was requested to act as counsel for the accused during investigation. Fradejas admitted that while the investigation was ongoing, Atty. Zulueta would “come and go” and was not at all times within hearing distance of the accused rather “within the premises.” Atty. Zulueta admitted as well as not having remember to inform the accused of his constitutional presumption of innocence.
Ruling in relation to right to counsel:
The confession made by the accused was not admissible because of lack of the presence of an “effective and vigilant counsel” which entails that “lawyer must be present and able to advice and assist his client from time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extra judicial confession.” (People vs Lucero)
Of which was clearly proven in statements above.
Resolution: “Wherefore, based on the foregoing considerations and premises, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt and ordered RELEASED unless he is also detained for some other legal ground. SO ORDERED.”
Sources:
GR No. 103627, 248 SCRA 47, Lex Libris
Yeom, Sarang
ReplyDelete1LM3
1.)
G.R. Nos. 104492-93 May 31, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ORLANDO FRAGO, accused-appellant.
JUDICIAL QUESTION:
Whether or not he is guilty of rape in crim. case no. 9144?
FACTS:
The accused, Orlando Frago was charged with rape and attempted rape docketed as criminal cases nos. 9144 and 9145. The information states that the accused Orlando Frago committed the crime in the early morning of 26 September 1990 in the Poblacion of Quezon, Palawan.
Jicelyn Lansap, 15 years old girl, was boarding in a house which belongs to Fortunato Moral with her relatives. Before intruding the house of Jicelyn, first the accused who was ice cream vendor went inside the residence of Ronalyn Pastera secretly at around three forty-five in the morning. He was about to take Ronalyn out of the room but she suddenly woke up and shouted for help. Then, her father immediately responded by switching the lights up. Thus, the accused had to escape from the house. Since he fail to defile Ronalyn, he next went to the boarding house of Jicelyn which was fifty meters away from the house of Ronalyn. Jicelyn Lansap was bodily carried by accused Orlando Frago to a nearby house belonging to Dado Andor. Then at around five-thirty in the morning, she was awakened by appellant who was already strangling her. She was hurt by the accused especially her private part and found out that she had been raped. At the same day, Ronalyn's father and Jicelyn reported to police authorities.
In Crim. Case No. 9145, it was acquitted due to lack of clear and convincing evidence that the accused Frago performed the act of crime of rape against Ronalyn Pastera. In Crim. Case No. 9144, the accused claimed that at nine in the evening of september 25, 1990, he fell asleep with his family after his tiring work and woke up at six on next morning. In his appeal, he imputes error to the trial court in convicting him on the basis of an identification which was made without the assistance of counsel. Also, according credence to the story of Jicelyn, thereby it is denying his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The court sustains the defense on the insufficiency of the identification of appellant Orlando Frago. With the testimony of Jicelyn, she has no reliable basis for pointing to the accused as the person who raped her. She said that the face was covered, and she did not have the opportunity to observe the height of the rapist; and, that the only evidence of sexual intercourse is the result of the medical examination. On the other hand, the Pastera sisters may have recognized the accused positively because their room was lighted and also he was not wearing anything on his face. They identified him on 28 September 1990, 14 whereas Jicelyn pointed him out only on 8 October 1990. Since they are neighbors, Pastera family might have shared the identity of accused to Jicelyn. Then, the identification of appellant by Jicelyn is doubtful.
RESOLUTION:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant ORLANDO FRAGO guilty of rape in Crim. Case No. 9144 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and he is ACQUITTED as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It appearing that he is detained, his immediate release from custody is ordered unless he is held for another cause.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Bonn Parba
ReplyDelete[G.R. No. 129296. September 25, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABE VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
Issues stated:
1. Was the search and seizure of the marijuana plants in this case lawful?
2. Was the used evidence (seizure of marijuana plants) in the case against Valdez admissible?
3. Has the prosecution proved that Valdez was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
Facts:
In this case, ABE VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ, the accused, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by trial court of cultivating marijuana plants punishable under section 9 of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. The accused-appellant contended there was unlawful search and that the court erred in declaring the marijuana plants, as evidence despite that was the product of an illegal search; erred in convicting the accused of violation of section 9 (Dangerous Drugs Act), Republic Act No. 6425 despite of the inadmissibility of the evidence; and gravely erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death upon the accused despite failure of the court to prove that the land where the Indian Hemp were cultivated was a public land on the assumption that the accused planted.
The Supreme Court reviewed the decision made and promulgated on February 18, 1997, by Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 3105. And upon review, the Supreme Court first issued, that the confiscated plants were evidently obtained during an illegal search and seizure. As the second issued, found that the said plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and seizure, can be used as evidence against the accused. Lastly the issue, which revolves around the sufficiency of the court’s evidence to prove appellant’s guilt.
Moreover, the police officers had narrowed down him in investigation and the appellant must be assisted by competent and independent counsel because he was already in a custodial investigation. Which the Constitution declares that any person under investigation for the charge of an offense shall have the right: to remain silent; to be assisted by competent and independent counsel of his own choice; and to be informed of such rights, unless these rights were waived into writing and in the presence of the counsel. Also it was noticed that the confession made by the appellant was inadmissible because for a confession to be admissible it requires the following: it must be voluntary; it must be made with the assistance of the counsel; it must be express; and it must be in writing. The admission of the appellant is verbal and uncounselled, and therefore violated his right to counsel and arrested without the warrant of arrest.
Resolution:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Regional Trial Court and the appellant was AQUITTED
De Castro, Fritz Angelain R.
ReplyDeleteI. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNARDINO DOMANTAY
[GR NO. 130612, MAY 11, 1999]
II. FACTS
The accused was convicted of complex rape with homicide for the death of 6-year old Jennifer Domantay and sentenced to death. He denied the accusations against him.
SPO1 Espinoza claimed that the accused-appellant agreed to answer all the queries that will be raised by the investigator. He confessed everything that had happened without the presence of the counsel. Espinoza also claimed that the accused admitted that he committed the crime and he even tells where he put the bayonet that he used in stabbing the victim. But the accused-appellant denied that there is a boundary dispute between him and the victim’s parents. The accused was not accompanied by his counsel, neither was his statement made in writing.
A DPWR radio reporter named Celso Manuel conducted an interview to the accused-appellant two or three meters away from the police station. The accused was accompanied by two police officers and there is no lawyer that is present. The accused admitted again that he did the whole crime and claimed that he used the victim to revenge on the victim’s parents.
III. ISSUE
Whether the confession of the accused is admissible or not
IV. INTERPRETATION
I. Failure of the court to take into account the confession made by the accused-appellant.
II. The court made a mistake in convicting the accused because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
V. Resolution
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused, Bernardino Domantay @ “Junior Otot” guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation and as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and accordingly, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the total amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P480,000.00),and to pay the costs.
Valencia, Precious.
ReplyDeletePEOPLE V. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174; G.R. NO. 87059; 22 JUN 1992]
Facts:
The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side, one of whom holding his abdomen. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a .38 caliber with live ammunitions in it, while his companion had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police including the revolver. For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of P.D.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree.
Issue
Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.
Resolution
An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32 of the Constitution. Rule 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court, provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. Accused-appellant is acquitted.
Cimatu, Jyrus
ReplyDeletePart I
People vs. Agustin
240 SCRA 541
G.R. No. 110290
January 25, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME “JIMMY” AGUSTIN, WILFREDO “SONNY” QUIAÑO, MANUEL “JUN” ABENOA, JR., and FREDDIE “BOY” CARTEL, accused. JAIME “JIMMY” AGUSTIN, accused appellant.
NATURE OF THE CASE:
Mr. JAIME “JIMMY” AGUSTIN, accused-appellant, is seeking acquittal from the appellate court following the conviction of the Regional Trial Court on the grounds that he directly conspired with Wilfredo Quiaño, Freddie Cartel and Manuel Abenoa Jr. on the murder of Dr. Nap Bayquen and Anna Theresa Francisco.1
FACTS:
At past 7:30 p.m. of September 6, 1986 in Baguio City, Dr. Bayquen, a dentist, is with his son, Anthony; Anthony’s girlfriend, Anna Theresa Francisco; his daughter, Dominic; and Danny Ancheta; a family friend. They are on the Brasilia of the doctor on the way to his residence from his clinic. Anthony, the doctor’s son, was driving the car. While they were crusing along Malvar Street and nearing the Baptist Church, a man came out from the right side of a car parked about two meters from the church. The man then approached the Brasilia of the doctor, aimed his armalite rifle through the window and fired at the passengers. The Brasilia swerved and hit a fence. The gunman then returned to the parked car then got away from the scene of the crime. All passengers are hit and Dr. Bayquen, his head blown off, and Anna Theresa died on the spot. Dominic was able to get out of the Brasilia to go to the Alabanza store where she contacted her mother and relayed what happened. After, Dominic and her mother then brought Dr. Bayquen and Anthony to the hospital. Danny Ancheta, the family friend was brought to a separate hospital, namely, Notre Dame Hospital.
Wilfredo Quiaño, accused, an alleged former military agent, who had been picked up in La Union by police authorities, CONFESSED, on an investigation led by Baguio City Fiscal Balajadia, that he was the triggerman. He further implied Manuel “Jun” Abenoa, Jr., the “bagman” who enthralled him to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee, Freddie “Boy” Cartel, was the one who provided the armalite, and a certain “Jimmy”. The confession proceeding was then ascribed into stenographic notes with the sworn statement of Quiaño, signed with the assistance of Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom and sworn to before the Baguio City Fiscal Balajadia. In the morning of February 10, 1987, Jaime “Jimmy” Agustin was picked up in Pangasinan by military personnel and brought to Baguio City. He also was forced to admit to the military personnel at gunpoint on the way to Baguio that he was involved in the crime. He was investigated and was given the same rights just like Quiaño. Agustin’s defense contests the admissibility of evidence since it was a clear violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, ADMISSION to the police authorities even though his rights were not properly informed to him, since he was interviewed under two (2) minutes in English and Tagalog and not Ilocano which is the dialect he understands and was extorted by military forces. Furthermore, he contests that he was not given a counsel of his own choice. It was Atty. Cajucom who assisted him, not his favored choice which is Atty. Oliver Tabin. Despite all of the contests of the appellant, the RTC convicted him because of conspiracy with Quiaño and that he was a direct participant of the crime.
ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in considering the accused-appellants extrajudicial confession as admissible against him.
Cimatu, Jyrus
ReplyDeletePart II
HELD:
NO. The accused-appellant’s extrajudicial statement was an admission and not a confession. The difference between the two is that confession is an acknowledgement of guilt, wherein the accused has openly confessed about his intent and guilt about the crime. Whereas in admission, it is only an acknowledgement of fact that can establish the ultimate fact of guilt. Admission is insufficient to authorize a conviction. However, even if the two are distinguished from another in the instant case, it is irrelevant since it violates Article III, Section 122 of the Constitution wherein the Agustin is not properly informed of his rights according to the stenographic notes which he signed with Atty. Cajucom instead of the transcription of the said notes. Agustin, whose only highest educational attainment is Grade Four (4) is deprived of his right to be informed in such case. The act of reminding someone of his rights as an accused is not merely ceremonial, it is relaying of important information to the subject about his rights, the counsel must make it sure that the subject understands his rights. Also, he was only interviewed in English and Tagalog instead of Ilocano, which is the dialect he understands. Moreover, he is deprived of the right to an independent and competent counsel since the attorney of the accused-appellant, Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom is an associate of the private prosecutor. He was also not bluntly told of his right to counsel of his own choice which is Atty. Tabin. The fiscal through suggestion, gave Atty. Cajucom as counsel, which appears that counsel was foisted upon Agustin. He was also informed of his right to waive the right to remain silent. While the accussed-appellant has indeed waived his right to remain silent, Article 12 Section III of the Constitution states that it must be in WRITING and in the presence of a lawyer. Evidence of said waiver is not presented in the court and not found in the transcript.
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered REVERSING the challenged judgement of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City, and ACQUITTING appellant JAIME “JIMMY” AGUSTIN. His immediate release from confinement is hereby ORDERED.
1Accused-appellant was acquitted by the lower court of frustrated murder and attempted murder due to insufficient evidence.
Cambri, Joshua Vctor
ReplyDelete[GR 136257; Feb.14, 2001]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
OSCAR YBAÑEZ, accused-appellant.
"Was the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged notwithstanding the victim’s admission that she was not threatened by accused-appellant"?
To warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the victim’s minority is her special qualifying circumstance and her relationship to the offender should be both alleged in the Information and proved during the trial. This is the principle to be applied in the case at bar.
Before the autonomic review was the decision dated on the 25th of September, year 1997 of Branch 71 of the Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial Region located in Antipolo, Rizal, with the Criminal Case No. 94-11878, finding the accused-appelant Oscar Ybañez, guilty of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
The case was initiated by a complaint filed by the vitim Erika Dialogo against accused-repellant Oscar Ybañez y Dagulpo, which was charged:
That on or about January 1, 1995, the Municipality of Taytay, Rizal, Philippines and with the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the accused, with the means of force, lewd act, intimidation and violence, did there and then willfully and unlawfully had sexual intercourse with Erika Dialogo, a minor, ten (10) years of age, without her consent and against her will.
WHEREFORE, the judgment being reviewed is hereby AFFIRMED with modifications. Accused-appellant Oscar Ybañez is hereby found guilty of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua (death). In addition to the award of P50,000.00, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim P50,000.00 for moral damages, and P20,000.00 for exemplary damages to deter other sex perverts from sexually molesting hapless women. There is no special pronouncement made as to costs.
Dumaliang, Donna Mae Pearl C.
ReplyDeleteTite: The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras, Pedro Bides and Teresa Domogma, accused-appellants
Question: Whether or not Teresa Domogma has something to do with Bernardo's murder.
Facts: Teresa Domogna was the wife of the deceased Bernardo Bagabag. They live with their children in Sabosob, Salapadan, Abra. There is no certificate that can prove that they are married. Their relationship is not good that it had been beset with troubles for teresa had going to her family home a couple of times and Bernardo always took time to look for her. On a different occasions, Talingdan has visited Teresa in their house while Bernardo is at work, and there is anomalous happening between the two of them because during those visit Teresa had made Corazon, their 12 year old daughter to go down the house and leave them. Bernardo had gotten wind that there is something happening between the two. A month before Bernardo was killed, Teresa left the house for more than 3 weeks, and Bernardo found out that she and Talingdan were seen together in the town of Tayum Abra during that time. Two days before bernardo was killed, that was thursday, Bernardo and Teresa had a fight; He slapped her many times that Teresa seeks to help her by the police. Talingdan, a policeman, came armed to Bernardo's house and called him to come down, Bernardo ignored him; Talingdan instead left and warned Bernardo that he will someday kill him. On Saturday, June 24, 1967, Bernardo was murdered in his house.
Corazon, Teresa's daughter to Bernardo gave also accounts of what happened. Friday morning, Corazon was washing clothes in the creek. She saw her mother meeting with Talingdan and their co-appellants. She heard them say, "Could he avoid the bullet" then Teresa noticed corazon and Teresa said to her that "You tell your father that we will kill him." Saturday corazon was cooking for food for supper when she saw her mother go to the yard where she again met with the other appellants. She recognize the long guns the appellants are carrying. Teresa came back to the house and proceed to her room. Corazon informed Bernardo but Bernardo didn't believe her. Bernardo went to the kitchen and he was fired upon form below the stairs of the batalan, but Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan and Tobias fired him again. Bides and Berras saw corazon trying to call for help, they threatened her.
The deffendants had a different testimony. According to them, Teresa lved Bernardo, they never quarreled, and her husband never hurt her. Teresa said that their is no relationship between Talingdan and her. Talingdan was not in the place where the tradegy happened, he said that he escorted the mayor in Bangued from June 22 to June 26. Tobias, Bides, and Berras claimed to be in the house of one Mrs. Bayongan in Sallapadan, 250-300 meters from the place of the killing.
The court believed Corazon's Testimony. Teresa was an accessory to the offense committed.
Resolution: Male appellants sentenced to death. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is Teresa Domogma, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum.
Manalastas, Areeya Katrina R.
ReplyDelete1ST CASE
TITLE:
People v. Crisologo
QUESTION:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused without safeguarding latter’s right to due process of law in providing a sign language expert.
FACT:
The accused, a deaf-mute, was convicted robbery and homicide by the trial court. During the proceedings, the presiding judge demanded plea of defense council for a sign language expert. They sent a copy of the court order to the School for the Deaf and Dumb in Pasay City and ask for a sign language expert but there was no available one. After 5 years of proceedings, no sign language expert came. On 10 February 1986, without the courtesy of an expert, the accused was found guilty with unreasonable doubt.
RESOLUTION:
The Supreme Court have decided to set aside the conviction. The Supreme Court said that accused was not given the privilege to exercise the right to be heard by himself and counsel, and the right to be provided with correct information and the cause of accusation against him. Stated in the Terry v. State case, the constitutional right would be meaningless and useless unless the data of the witnesses against him could be understood by the accused.
Valencia, Precious.
ReplyDeletePeople of the Philippines vs. Francisco Juan Larrañaga
G.R. Nos. 138874-75
Facts
According to the prosecutors, at 10:00 p.m. on July 16, 1997, Larrañaga and seven other defendants kidnapped the Chiong sisters near a mall on Cebu, raped them, and then threw one of the sisters into a ravine. The other sister was never found. The prosecutors' case against Larrañaga centered on the testimony of a co-defendant, David Valiente Rusia. In exchange for blanket immunity, he testified. The trial court only permitted Larrañaga’s counsel to cross examine him for half an hour, despite the fact that Rusia’s direct testimony lasted for days. In that half hour, Larrañaga’s counsel established that Rusia had lied to the prosecution and the court concerning his prior convictions. Rusia had claimed he had never been convicted of crime. He has a record of burglary and forgery. Rusia fainted when confronted with this evidence. Davidson Rusia is a convicted felon and was sentenced to prison twice in the United States for other crimes. Rusia claimed that he was with Larrañaga in Ayala Center, Cebú early in the evening of July 16, the evening Larrañaga says that he was at R&R Restaurant in Quezon City with his friends. Rusia was not known to Larrañaga and only appeared as a “state witness” 10 months after the crime.
Issue
The accused was not given enough time to explain his testimony about the said crime.
Resolution
In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño, Ariel Balansag, and James Anthony Uy are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection;
In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, , appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño, Ariel Balansag, and James Anthony Uy are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellant James Anthony Uy, who was a minor at the time the crime was committed, is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, he is declared guilty of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve years of prison mayor in its maximum period, as minimum ,to seventeen years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.
Manalastas, Areeya Katrina R.
ReplyDelete2ND CASE
TITLE:
People V. Estarda
QUESTION:
Whether or not suspending the arraignment lies within the discretion of the trial court and the test to determine whether the proceedings will be suspended.
FACTS:
The Bishop, while having his final blessing at the St. John’s Cathedral, Dagupan City, a man from the crowd suddenly sat on the Bishop’s chair. He was the appellant, Roberto Estrada. The assistant of the Bishop, Crisanto Santillan, asked him to leave the Bishop’s chair but he doesn’t want. The security guard, Rogelio Mararac, approached him and told him to leave the Bishop’s chair. Mararac used his nightstick to tap the appellant’s hand. When he was about to tap the appellant for the 3rd time, the appellant suddenly stabbed Mararac at the back. The appellant got the microphone and shouted that no one can defeat him. He again sat on the Bishop’s chair. Mararac was wounded and bleeding. Afterwards, the appellant was placed in jail. Mararac died after few minutes upon his arrival at the hospital. The appellant was convicted with murder. The Public Attorney’s Office filed an “Urgent Motion to Suspend Arraignment and to Commit Accused to Psychiatric Ward at Baguio General Hospital,” claims that the appellant must be confined at the psychiatric ward of the Baguio General Hospital because he was suffering from a mental defect. But the trial court opposed, finding that the questions were fully understood and answered by him intelligently. The accusation continued and the decision was not guilty by the court on appellant’s advantage. The appellant filed a case of Demurrer to Evidence. Until a letter was sent by the Jail Warden of Dagupan City to the trial court demanding the court to treat the appellant to conclude whether he should stay in jail or be transferred to some other institution. The court denied the Demurrer to Evidence filed by the appellant. The appellant’s counsel filed a “Motion to Confine Accused for Physical, Mental and Psychiatric Examination. They also sent two letter from one of the Jail Warden and a letter addressed to the Jail Warden from the Bukang Liwayway Association. The trial court denied the appellant’s reconsideration. His cousel presented the affirmation of Dr. Maria Soledad Gawidan, a resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at the Baguio General Hospital. The appellant was confined from 18 February to 22 February 1993. He was suffering from “Schizophrenic Psychosis, Paranoid Type-schizophrenia, paranoid, chronis, paranoid type.” The decision in June 1997, the appellant is found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.
RESOLUTION:
The court have decided that the Urgent Motion to Suspend Arraignment and to Commit Accused to Psychiatric Ward at Baguio General Hospital is denied. It is said that the proof is not sufficient when the appellant killed Mararac. It is not advisable to join the accused in court if he is insane. It is a violation of the constitutional rights.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYeom, Sarang
ReplyDelete1LM3
2.)
G.R. Nos. 101833-34 October 26, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO ARCE y BORROMEO, accused-appellant.
JUDICIAL QUESTION:
Whether or not Alberto Arce y Borromeo is guilty of the rape and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition?
FACT:
Alberto Arce y Borromeo was charged with rape and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in two separte information, criminal case nos. VIII-635 and VII-637.
Around two fifteen in the early morning of January 30, 1990, the complainant Perlita Acio de Leon, together with a ten year old girl Rodalyn Medrano, went to see her husband in alias Boyet at the Double J Disco, Centro, Aparri, Cagayan. On their way back home, Perlita was accosted from someone behind whose face was coverd by a T-shirt. She was overtaken by the accused and brought to the back of the Tana ricemill with a gun poked to her left temple. Meantime, her companion Rodalyn Medrano ran to report the incident to her father and her father reported it to police authorities. At the back of the ricemill, the accused forced her to remove her clothes and to lie down by poking the gun on her temple. The accused kept on kissing her and inserted his penis. At first it was not successful to do the sexual intercourse so he tried once more and that was the time when the policemen arrived focusing the flashlight. The accused tried hide and threaten her to keep quiet with the gun but Perlita resisted and take the possession of the gun and shouted for help. After that, the accused ran away and jumped into the Apagonan river. However the following morning, the accused was picked up and Perlita recognized his voice and the real culprit. The observation of the court was that there was no evidence and no reason presented that she fabricated her story.
The accused put up a defense of alibi. He said that he was with his family and suddenly the poilicemen came and picked up him and brought to the PNP headquarters where he was identified by the complainant. Appellant stressed that no persecution witness had asseted having acutally seen him at the scene of the crime. And also, he is considering the absence of medical evidence establishing the fact of rape and in view of Perlita's admission that she had been "nearly raped" and not actually violated.
Identification of the doer of the crime was difficult because the place was too dark and the complainant was being chased that she had few chance to observe the physical appearance and add to that, the accused face was covered with a T-shirt. In the instant case, at least three circumstances converged to sustain Arce's guilt. Firstly, the wet maong pants was found in appellant's house. The prosecution had established that appellant was wearing maong pants when the latter, in making good his escape jumped into the nearby river. Secondly, the accused was found with bruises and injuries at the time of his arrest. The complainant had testified that she defended herself by inflicting body injuries to her assailant. However, the appellant explained that he fell from a bicycle just a day before his arrest. Lastly, Perlita identified her assailant by his voice.
In the Criminal Case No. VIII-637 for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the absence of license and legal authority constitutes the offense of illegal possession of a firearm and the proof must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Although it had shown that appellant had used the firearm, failed to prove that the accused had no license or authority to possess that firearm and to carry it outside of his residence.
(For no.2)RESOLUTION:
ReplyDeleteWe are compelled to conclude that the guilt of appellant Arce in respect of the charge of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition was simply not established by the necessary quantum of proof.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing:
(1) the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. VIII-635 for rape is hereby AFFIRMED en toto;
(2) however, the decision in Criminal Case No. VIII-637 for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition is hereby REVERSED and appellant Alberto Arce ACQUITTED of such offense on ground of reasonable doubt.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bidin, Romero, Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.
Sean Dominic Lopez Ruelos
ReplyDeleteEN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO y PASCUAL, accused-appellant.
[G.R. No. 127755. April 14, 1999]
(I) Facts of the case
>On the evening of the 13th of May, a witness, one Paul Vincent Alonzo was flagged by 3 women by the side of Nita’s Drugstore, Gen. Luna St., Cabanatuan City.
>Joselito Del Rosario, a tricycle driver, had an arrangement with the suspect “Boy” Santos to drive him to the Cockpit at the Blas Edward Coliseum.
>Despite the original arrangement, Joselito was ordered to fetch the two other suspects, namely “Jun” Marquez and “Dodong” Bisaya in front of the parking lot of Merced Drugstore
>Subsequently, Joselito was stopped by “Dodong” Bisaya under the pretense that he was going to buy cigarettes. The victim, Virginia Bernas, was assaulted by “Dodong” Bisaya. The accused-appellant then and there attempted to leave and seek help however he was threatened by “Boy” Santos and accused appellant was held at gunpoint. The assailant succeeded in stealing the bag of Virginia Bernas and then shot her.
>Assailants ordered the accused-appellant towards Dicama and was threatened that if he ever tell authorities his family will be threatened.
>Court of First Instance finds accused-appellant guilty of the charge of co-principal in the crime of robbery and homicide and hereby sentenced to Death. Case goes to appeal
The accused was then invited by thepolice for questioning and he pointed to the location where he dropped off the suspects. When the police arrive that the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued, resulting to the death of some of the suspects
(II) Issues on the Appeal
> (1)Whether the Miranda Rights of the accused- appelant were violated
>(2) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was lawful
(III) SC Adjudication
The Supreme court said that the accused should be apprised of his Miranda Rights from the moment he is caught by the authorities as this is deemed the start of custodial investigation. In Reality, the courts includes the invitations by the police of the citations of custodial investigations
(IV)Final Decision
The Supreme Court hereby reverses the judgment of the trial court and acquits the accused-appellant. So ordered.
Leachon, Marie Rician
ReplyDeletePeople vs Valdez
G.R. No. 129296. September 25, 2000
EN BANC
I.Facts
a.) SP03 Marcelo Tipay received a tip from an unnamed informer about a marijuana plantation
b.)With the help of the informant, the authorities searched for the area of the marijuana plantation.
c.) The authorities found 7 five-foot high cannabis plants and took picture of the accused with the plants and seized the marijuana as evidence
d.)Authorities took pictures of accused with the cannabis plants
e.)Authorities, as testified by the accused, coerced the accused for a confession
g.) The Trial Court finds Abe Valdez guilty and sentenced to death
II. Issues on appeal
1.) Trial court erred in admitting the 7 marijuana plants as evidence despite its inadmissibility because of illegal search
2.) Where the seized cannabis plants admissible as evidence
3.) Was the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
III. SC decisions
1.)There was an informer so there was ample time for a search warrant to be signed; Furthermore informant showed/described where the cannabis plants were. Therefore, doctrine of plain view cannot be implied because the authorities were searching for the plants not stumbled upon inadvertently.
2.) As the cannabis plants fall under Fruits of the Poisonous tree doctrine it is inadmissible in evidence because the seizure was invalid.
3.) The confession given by the accused-appellant was without the help of a counsel and therefore deemed as hearsay
IV. Final Judgment.
In line of the above mentioned the SC reverses the decision and hereby acquits Abe Valdez on the grounds of reasonable doubt.
Abaquita Jose carlo alfonso
ReplyDeleteG.R. Nos. 138934-35. January 16, 2002
EN BANC
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Anthony Escordial, accused-appellant
I. Facts of the Case.
- The complainant, Michelle Darunday, was living with Erma Blanca, and Ma. Teresa Gellaver.
- On the night of the incident, Erma was awakened by the presence of a man. The man had his head covered with a t-shirt to prevent identification and carried a knife about four inches long and asked where the money was. Erma Blanca and Michelle Darunday gave the money because they were threatened by the man to be killed.
- The assailant then blindfolded Michelle and began to rape her. After satisfying his lust, the assailant conversed for a while with complainants. The accused, threatening to call his companions, then, again, raped the complainant in the other orifice of the complainant’s nether regions.
- Accused then warned the women not to report or else they would be killed.
- After 30 mins. The complainants told their neighbor of what happened. Then they told the owner of the boarding house what happened who then told the police.
- Physical description of the assailant was given by the complainant at the police station.
- Police found that the descriptions given by the complainant fit that of a worker in the Coffee Break Corner, where the accused was employed. Heading there, the police asked of the accused whereabouts which was, as they were told, watching a basketball game.
- The police arrested the accused (w/o warrant) and proceeded to the police station where he saw the complainant and inadvertently blushed.
- Complainant then identified him based on the marks on the neck and matched other physical descriptions.
- Court of first instance ruled that accused is found guilty of robbery and rape with no mitigating circumstances and is hereby sentenced with maximum penalty of death.
II. Issues on the appeal
a.) The legality of the warrantless arrest of the appellant
b.) Accused-appellant invokes Art. III Sec. 12 (1) of the Constitution.
III. SC adjudication.
a.) The accused-appellant was watching a basketball game when he was seized therefore he was not 1.) In flagrante delicto 2.) He was not an escaped convict 3) the arrest was not after direct consummation of the crime. However, in question of the “Personal Knowledge” the police were not at the scene of the crime when it happened therefore “Personal Knowledge” does not apply. Furthermore, there was ample time for police to procure a warrant and no reason for them not to obtain one.This deficiency is, however, cured once accused-appellant submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court and not questioning the invalidity of the arrest.
b.) The accused-appellant, having been the focus of attention by the police after he had being pointed by a Ramie as the possible suspect of the crime, was already under custodial investigation when these out-of-court identifications were conducted by the police. Thereby all questions answered by accused-appellant is hereby deemed as hearsay. Furthermore, his right to counsel was violated. Hence, evidence is inadmissible in court.
c.) It is found that the prosecution has failed to meet the degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case.
IV. Final Decision
- In lieu of the above mentioned, the Supreme Court hereby reverses the sentence and acquits the accused-appellant
CARLOS, KAIRA MARIE B.
ReplyDelete1LM3
Case; People of the Philippines VS Bacalso
Questions:
1. Was the accused guilty of the crime?
2. Was their a violation of human rights?
3. Was there a grave abuse of authority by the judge in rendering its decision?
FACTS OF THE CASE
It is a case regarding “double murder with frustrated murder’ It happened on the 8th of December in the year 1994 at Tagoloan, Lanao del Norte, Philippines . The accused, Edgar Bacalso did willfully and with intent to kill Artemio, Remilie and Jerry Cariit and with that Bacalso even throw a grenade at the victims. And the victims had multiple wounds which is the reason of the death of Artemio and Remilie Cariit, while Jerry Cariit has a serious wounding because of the said explosion. The case had three witnesses namely Artchel Maglangit, Evangeline Cariit and , Agustina Atulan. It was also said that the testimonies of Evageline Cariit and Artchel Manglangit cannot help but uncertain serious doubts about the case. Because of the inconsistencies of what theyre saying. The trial court thereof dismissed because it was said that it was merely trivial and would unlikely be the sign of unlikehood.
Resolution
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED, accused Edgar Bacalso is ACQUITTED of the crime of Double Murder with Frustrated Murder for the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and he is ordered to be forthwith released from custody unless there are other valid grounds to hold him for further detention. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
CASE 2
CASE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS OANIS
QUESTIONS:
1.Was their any violation of human rights?
2. Was the accused guilty of the crime?
3. Was the evidence presented by the prosecution weak enough that’s why the accused has been acquitted?
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. In one afternoon of the 24th of December in the year 1938, capt, Godofredo Monsod, a constabulary provincial inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, He got a telegram from Major Guido saying that “INFORMATION RECEIVED EDCAPED CONVICT, ANSELMO BALAGTAS WITH BALAIRINA NAMED IRENE IN CABANATUAN, DEAD OR ALIVE”
2. The police were ordered to arrest a notorious criminal and a escaped convict and if overpowered to get him dead or alive and he was Anselmo Balagtas.
3. It is also the same order given to the chief of police Oanis who was also called the Provincial Inspector.
4. The provincial inspector divided the party into two groups with defendant Oanis and Galanta, and private Fernandez taking the route to Rizal street leading to the house where Irene was supposedly living.
5. The defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene and on that they saw a sleeping man with his back towards the door where they were and simultaneously fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. The supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serapio Tecson, an innocent man
RESOLUTION
The appealed judgment should therefore be reversed and the appellants, Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta, ACQUITTED, with costs de oficio.
[G.R. No. 129055. September 25, 2000]
DeletePEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGAR BACALSO, accused-appellant.
CASE 2.
GR. NUMBER 47722, JULY 27, 1943
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS ANTONIO OANIS AND ALBERTO GALANTA, Defendants and appellants
Dela Paz Nelle
ReplyDeleteTitle: People of the Philippines vs Eugenio Mangompit Jr.
G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001
Question: Did the accused-appellant committed of five (5) counts of rape against Marites Quirante?
Facts: At July 20, 1994 in Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court said that Eugenio Mangompit Jr. did an unlawfully sexual intercourse with Marites Quirante a 16 year old girl. It was also said that this incident were reapeted several times, midnight on 9 September 1994, in the afternoon of 12 September 1994, in the afternoon of 15 September 1994, and in the evening of 20 September 1994. The prosecution presented 3 witnesess named, Marites Quirante, private complainant and Bienvenido Qirante and Dr. Raymund Nadela. In 1994, Eugenio stayed at the Quirantes in Zamboanga del Norte. Bienvenido Quirante was Eugenio’s brother-in-law an Marites was his neice and 15 years old that time. July 20 at around 1AM Marites was sleeping at the same room with Eugenio. Eugenio with bolo held Marites’ hands, took off her underwear, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina then made a push and pull movement while on top of her. While this was happening her siblings and parents remained asleep. It was about five minutes and Eugenio threatened her that if she will say anything she will kill Marites. Same incident happened on September 9, 1994. The last three incidents happened still in their house but when her parents and siblings were out. The third incident happened September 12 1995 around 5:00 p.m. This was followed by a fourth rape incident three days later on September 15 1994 around 5:00 p.m. The last rape allegedly occurred on September 20 1994 at around 6:00 p.m. Marites was scared that is why she didn’t tell anyone. December 5, 1994 her parents noticed that she was pregnant and that’s the time she told them about Eugenio’s malicious acts towards her that happened 5 times. Three days later she was examined at Siayan Main Health Center.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDulatas, Ruth
ReplyDeleteG.R. No. L-29015 April 29, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FELIPE MALUNSING, ET AL., defendants, MANUEL VILLEGAS, defendant-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for plaintiff-appellee.
Pablito Pielago for defendant-appellant.
Facts:
In the start of the trial, the defendant in a murder case revealed that he had lost confidence in his former counsel and wanted to hold counsel de parte. Nevertheless, the court appointed the same lawyer as his counsel de oficio. Asked by the court if he wanted to confer with his client, counsel declined, saying “ I think I know the case,” and the case then proceeded to trial, during which no evidence was offered in behalf of the defendant, Manuel Villegas. And to his co-accused who were actively represented by their lawyers. The Supreme Court remanded the case for new trial in view of the violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
According to Article III, Sec 12(1), It is stated that the right to be silent and to the assistance of counsel may be waived during custodial investigation. The right to counsel does not stop after trial, but continues even where the case is appealed.
Issue: Will the conviction be reversed or not?
Held : Yes, Because there is a gross violation of Villega’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court stated that it is not enough that a counsel de oficio was appointed, where the defendant in a murder case revealed that he had lost confidence in his former counsel and wanted to hold counsel de parte. Nor is it to manifest respect for this right if the counsel de oficio thus named, instead of conferring with the accused, would just casually inform the judge that he was already fully prepared for his exacting responsibility. It was unplanned. Considering the gravity of the case, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
Resolution:
WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of December 4, 1967 insofar as it found Manuel Villegas guilty of the crime of murder is reversed and a new trial ordered forthwith for such accused. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.
Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
SO ORDERED.
David, Justine
ReplyDeleteTitle: People of the Philippines vs. Pacito Ordono and Apolonio Medina – GR 132154, June 29, 2000
Facts: The body of the fifteen-year-old Shirley Victore was found in the bushes in Barangay Poblacion, Santol, La Union. There was unidentified sources who pointed Pacito Ordono and Apolonio Medina as the suspects. They were invited to the police station from some questions but released afterwards because there was no sufficient evidences. A week after, the accused went to the police station and admitted that they were responsible of the death of Shirley Victore. The police officers invited the Parish Priest, Municipal Mayor and the Chief of Police to witness the investigation.The accused were brought to Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) and met their PAO lawyer Oscar Cruz. Atty. Cruz explained to them their rights and the questions as well as the answers they should give. The hearing was held in Baloan MTC where they were asked by Judge Fabian Bautista if they were forced to give their confessions.
Issue: Whether the accused's confessions should be inadmissible as evidence against them
Resolution: Yes. They were not assisted by the counsel during the investigation. The accused were not informed of their rights. When they made their admission, it violated their right to self-incrimination.
Sultan, Abdul Fahad
ReplyDeletePEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
BENJAMIN SAYABOC y SEGUBA, PATRICIO ESCORPISO y VALDEZ, MARLON BUENVIAJE y PINEDA, and MIGUEL BUENVIAJE y FLORES, appellants.
Facts:
Marlon Buenviaje and Joseph Galam was first subdue by Tessie Pawid when she caught them engaging in a fisticuff. But before Buenviaje leaves, he gave Galam a vulgar sign and shouted foul words and he gave him a threat on his life.
Galam, at his Rooftop Disco and Lodging House which is located at Barangay Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya , was shot. There is a witness that saw a man, identified as, Benjamin Sayaboc , on that fateful day but earlier, who rang the doorbell of the Rooftop and asked her questions regarding about a woman and about his boss’s arrival.
Then Tessie Pillar, Sayaboc ordered a bottle of beer to Tessie Pillar but his beer came too long which made him angry. Then Galam arrives, then after a while they heard gunshots and that came from the ground floor of the building and saw Sayaboc shooting Galam.
Joselito Parungao, Chief Barangay Tanod of Barangay Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya saw Marlon Buenviaje with Miguel Buenviaje, his father, and Patricio Escorpiso aboarding a tricycle parked in a vacant lot between the Rooftop and Diego Theater. Parungao ordered a pancit bihon, while he was waiting he saw waiting outside of the restaurant he noticed that the tricycle was still parked in the vacant lot. After he got his pancit bihon he heard gunshots from behind the Rooftop building and saw a person, he later came to know as Benjamin Sayaboc, walking toward the tricycle and it left with him.
Sayaboc confessed in an Ilocano dialect that he killed Joseph Gala math the behest of Marlon Buenviaje at the cost of P100,000.
Trial Court finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
Issues on Appeal
The appellant, Escorpiso, raised these issues.
a.) Extrajudicial evidence of the confession was inadmissible because it was taken without the presence of a competent lawyer.
b.) Court failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellants.
SC decisions
a.) The counsel of the appellants was found to be incompetent as he was silent and ineffective in the whole time of the custodial investigation. , Furthermore, he was not independent, as he was formerly a judge in the National Police Commission, which was holding court inside the PNP Command of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
b.) Subsequently, appellants Marlon Buenviaje, Miguel Buenviaje, and Patricio Escorpiso claim that they were denied due process because they were not able to present evidence in their defense. There is a violation on the rule of criminal procedure in favor of enforcing their constitutional right to be heard by themselves and counsel.
c.) The confession of Sayaboc was erroneous because of the incompetence of the present counsel.
Final judgment
With the above mentioned, the SC thereby modifies judgment of the resolution of the Trial Case. Appellants Benjamin Sayaboc and Marlon Buenviaje are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Appellants Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso are hereby acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
(2) On that same day they filled a case against Eugenio. April 13 1995 Marites gave birth to a baby girl. Bienvenido told the court that Eugenio was living with them, he had no jod and did not even helped them in their farm. He said that when the time he noticed Marites was pregnant and asked about it and Marites told them about it he immediately reported it to the police. The witness described their house as a regular house no divisions inside only the kitchen was separated with a small divider and there were 9 people staying in their house. He admitted that the first 2 rape incidents they didn’t hear Marites shout aking for help because they were deep asleep and too tired. He only knew what was happening when he noticed Marites’ stomach and asked about it. Dr. Raymund Nadela said that based on medical examination he conducted over Marites on December 8, 1994 the results said that there is a possibility that Marites had been raped as her hymen was no longer intact although there was no sign of any laceration. For the side of Eugenio Mangumpit Jr. he presented three witnesses named Primitivo Mangumpit his brother, Maraflor Acopiado and himself. Primitivo said that his brother didn’t do the rape incident because the time when the rape was happening Eugenio was with him as Paraiso, Kalawit Zamboanga. During the month of July when the first raped happened Eugenio was working with him at the farm until January 1995 when Eugenio got sick and brought to the hospital. HE admitted that the place where Marites lived was 6 hous away from his place. He said that Eugenio never stayed with them during the date of the incident. For Eugenio’s part he denied everything that was said against him. He claimed that he was staying at his brothers house from 1993-1994.
ReplyDelete(3) He admitted he stayed in the house of his mother but never in Marites’. He also admitted he had malaria which necessitated his treatment at the District Hospital. He said the reason why he was accusing of this things because the interest of her sister in acquiring his coconut plantation in Sapang Dalaga, Misamis Occidental. His last witness witness, the daughter of witness Primitivo Mangumpit. She said that from July 18-25 1994 she was visiting her father and saw Eugenio was there and sick. She stated that she went there because her father needed money because Eugenio was sick. But admitted that she went back home to Dapitan City on July 19 1994 a that she did not know the where was Eugenio in September of 1994 when the other rapes incidents happened.
ReplyDeleteResolution: "WHEREFORE, accused Eugenio Mangumpit, Jr., is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) Counts of Rape and is sentenced to suffer the mandatory penalty of DEATH for each count. In addition, accused is ordered to indemnify the offended party Marites Quirante P250,000.00 plus P125,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Garcia, Alexandra Maureen Bay
ReplyDeletePeople vs Tee (January 20, 2003)
Facts:
- A review on the judgment that was made against Tee (convicted for illegal possession of Marijuana and was sentenced to death)
-The defense contradicted the decision of the court with regards to the taking of marijuana from the accused without the search warrant.
- It was said that the accused was dispossessed of his right to a speedy trial.
-The prosecution failed to showcase their witnesses during the 20 hearing dates thereby slowing down the trial procedure.
Question:
Whether or not the substantive right of the accused for a speedy trial prejudiced during the hearing of the case.
Resolution:
The court ruled that the essential right of the accused for a fair and speedy trial was not violated in the said case. It was said that the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 that trial period for the criminal cases should be overall 180 days.
Tuvillo Raphael Thom j.
ReplyDeleteG.R. No. 133026. February 20, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWARD ENDINO (at large) and GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO, accused.
GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO, accused-appellant.
I. Facts of the Case:
A street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October 1991, Gerry Galgarin, uncle of accused Edward Endino, suddenly lunged at Dennis and stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. Dennis’ girlfriend Clara Agagas who was with him, stunned by the unexpected attack. Dennis struggled and free himself from his attacker. Dennis dashed towards the nearby Midtown Sales but from out of nowhere Edward Endino appeared and fired at Dennis.The two (2) assailants fled in the direction of the airport.
Dennis, wounded and bleeding, ask for help inside the Elohim Store.He collapsed on the floor. Clara and some onlookers took him to the hospital but Dennis Died before he could receive medical attention.
On 18 October 1991, the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against Edward Endino and accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin and warrants were issued for their arrest. On 19 November 1992, Gerry Galgarin was arrested by the efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at Sitio Sto. Niño, Antipolo, Rizal. He was taken into temporary custody by the Antipolo Police. On the evening of the following day, he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Gaudencio Manlavi and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to Palawan.
II. Final Decision:
The Decision of the court to GERRY GALGARIN is guilty of Murder qualified by Treachery.
G.R. No. L-47722
EN BANC
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants.
I. Facts of the case:
DEC 24.1938 – Anselmo Balagtas a anotorious criminal and an escaped convict.
Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Alberto Galanta were under instructions to capture Balagtas Dead or Alive.
Going to the suspected house, they went into a room and seeing a man sleeping.Immediately fired at him, without knowing his identity. The victim turnedout to be not Balagtas but it is an innocent man named Serapio Tecson.The defendants appealed that they acted in innocent mistake of fact.
II. Appeals:
No circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action
- Arrest Balagtas,kill if overpowered
- Officer is never justified in using unnecessary force
- Killing was intentional
- Acted on duty
III. Final decision:
Judgement Modified to Murder with integrity circumstances
III. Final decision:
DeleteJudgement Modified to Murder with mitigating circumstances
Damn you auto correct.. sorry sir
Veloso, Alyanna Paula A.
ReplyDeletePeople of the Philippines vs. Jose Ma. Veloso
G.R. No. L-23051
October 20, 1925
FACTS:
1. Jose Ma. Veloso is the manager of the Parliamentary Club, a gambling house, located at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila and a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippine Legislature.
2. May 19, 1923: J.F. Townsend, chief of the gambling squad verified the fact that the Parliamentary Club is a gambling house
3. May 25, 1923, Detective Andres Geronimo applied for and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduño of the municipal court
4. Provided with the search warrant, the police attempted to raid the Parliamentary Club at three in the afternoon founding the doors to be closed and barred. However, other policemen broke in the outer door.
5. Nearly fifty persons were apprehended by the police once inside the club
6. Veloso refused to admit that he was John Doe and told that the police had no right to search the house.
7. Due to the exhaustion of patience, police Rosacker took hold of Veloso but the latter bit the officer in the right forearm and gave him a blow in another part of the body.
8. Veloso was finally laid down on the floor through the combined efforts of Rosacker and Townsend and gambling utensils were taken from his pockets.
9. The persons arrested in the raid were accused of gambling. However, all of them were acquitted in the Court of First Instance for lack of proof except for Veloso.
10. Veloso was found guilty of maintaining a gambling house and the crime of resistance of the agents of the authority.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Veloso has the legal right to resist the police by force since the name of Veloso did not appear in the search warrant, but instead the pseudonym John Doe was used
2. Whether or not the search warrant is lawful given that a fictitious name is inserted in the complaint or information, in lieu of the true name
RESOLUTION:
1. The Organic Act requires a particular description of the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized and that the warrant in this case sufficiently described the place and the gambling apparatus and in addition, contained a description of the person to be seized. It is invariably recognized that the warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void, “except in those cases where it contains a description personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused.” The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served. To authorize resistance to the agents of authority, the illegality of the invasion must be clearly manifest.
2. The police were authorized to arrest without warrant since a crime was being committed
FINAL JUDGMENT:
In lieu of the above mentioned
Judgment is AFFIRMED.
Defendant shall be sentenced to two months and one day imprisonment, arresto mayor, with the cost of this instance against him.
mecitas, john vincent
ReplyDeletePeople vs. Rene Lamsing - GR 105316, September 21, 1995
Facts: Rene Lamsing was accused of killing the security guard on a construction site in cubao, during the investigation was made to join a police line-up in a police station. He was identified as culprit among those lined up by a witness.
Issue: whether accused miranda’s rights were violated when the witness identified him from the police line up.
Held: No, a police line-up does not form part of the custodial investigation. Therefore, the accused cannot yet invoke his rights in such instances.
Sir, nagreply na lang po ako dun sa deleted kong post.
ReplyDeleteDun ko na po pinost ung Case Digest ko.
Ablan, Kristine Yvonne
ReplyDeletePosting for Yvonne
People V.S Anthony Escordial
FACTS
Darunday, the rape victim did not have any idea how the suspect look liked because she was blindfolded at the time the rape was committed by the suspect, the suspect is talking to the victim while the rape is going on that's why the only thing that the victim recognize is the suspects voice and rough skin. The roommate claimed she saw the suspect even though she is also blindfolded because of the light that filtered from the lamp and that's how she gave a physical description of the suspect to the police. The police found the suspect, the suspect was brought to the police station and the victim is already at the station. The suspect suddenly blushed when he saw the rape victim and he asked her if she really knew him but the victim didn't reply to his question. The victim confirmed that he is the guy who raped him because he recognized the voice of the suspect and also because of the rough skin and keloid at the back of the suspects’ neck.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused was lawful.
(2)Whether the accused Miranda rights were violated.
Camille Anne E. Duterte 1lm3, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN TIDULA, VICTORIO TIDULA, DOMINGO GATO, SALVACION GATO, and JOSE PRIOR, accused-appellants, [G.R. No. 123273. July 16, 1998]
ReplyDeleteFACTS: 6:45 PM of August 31, 1992, Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta, son of Marilyn Manubag, the complainant, was found dead in the bathroom of their house, where his mouth was stuffed with a handkerchief, his body has stab wounds. The autopsy report concluded that the cause of death of the victim was cardio-respiratory arrest, next only to multiple stab wounds and cervical fracture. On that night also, a cassette-recording worth P3000 cannot be found in their room, along with two jackets, worth P4000 and an amount of cash missing. Via a police investigation on September 7, 1992, Pablo Genosa broke his silence by conceding all he knew of the crime.11 in the morning of August 21, 1992, accused Ruben Tidula, Domingo Gato and Victorio Tidula went to his home in Brgy. Nanga, Guimbal, Iloilo. They invited him to join in a plan to kill Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta and his mother Marilyn Manubag. Salvacion Gato would accordingly pay P2,000.00 for the accomplishment of the plan. However, he asked why it was too small an amount for the heavy job; he was told after that they will hold a hold-up so that they could earn more. On August 24, 1992, they were prepared to conduct the plan, however failed since there were a lot of people in the place, and that there was too much light in the area. It was learned that the reason behind the desire of Salvacion Gato to kill the victim. It rooted in a market quarrel, where the victim accordingly threatened to kill the daughters of Salvacion Gato. Upon learning about the threat, she decided that they would rather have them killed before they even get to kill her daughters. The plan was reset on August 29, 1992, where it was another Monday. As Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta arrives and opens the padlock of the gate, the accused Ruben Tidula and Jose Prior appeared and approached him and pointed their single shot armalite hand gun and knife at him. They entered the house through the back door. 15 minutes passed, Ruben Tidula and Jose Prior went out of the house and were met by Pablo Genosa and Victorio Tidula outside. They were told to leave for the victim Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta has already been killed by them and Domingo Gato had then left. Pablo Genosa,now witness, noticed that Ruben Tidula and Domingo Gato were already wearing jackets and Jose Prior was already carrying a cassette recorder. On September 2, 1992, Domingo Gato gave the witness Genosa his share of P2,000.00 and was told to prepare for leaving the place for the following day. The Defense held that the witness’s statements were mere fabrication, and that each of them had their own businesses during that time of the crime and were nowhere possibly involved in it.
ISSUES:
Whether or not, the constitutional rights of the appellants were violated during the custodial investigation.
Whether or not the court’s judgment of the issuance of warrants against the accused, was a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
Whether or not the court was wrong in discharging the accused Pablo Genosa in using him to frame up and charge all the accused, given a reward and promise by the other party involved.
Whether or not the court was wrong in convicting the accused, given inconsistencies on the part of the witness, Pablo Genosa,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAblan, Kristine Yvonne
ReplyDeletePart 2
HELD
(1) NO. He was arrested while he was watching a basketball game. He was not caught in flagrante delicto. Neither was he arrested immediately after the consummation of the crime because he was only “invited” for questioning a week after the incident. However, the defect was cured when he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
(2) YES, insofar as he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation. Nevertheless, the Court noted that the accused did not, at any time, admit to committing the crime, even when he claimed that he was being tortured by the police. Therefore, there was no uncounselled confession obtained from him.
The Court also found that, although the out-of-court identification of the accused was inadmissible as evidence since he was not assisted by counsel at that time, the in-court identification was definitely a valid ground for his conviction. In fact, it was actually the in-court identification that formed the basis for the RTC's decision, not the out-of-court identification.
People V.S. Pablito Andan
FACTS
The accused appellant was accused of rape with homicide. When the police asked him, he claimed he was only a look-out for his two neighbors who he claimed perpetrators. He also told the the police where the two nieghbors hid the victims belongings. He asked to speak with the Mayor in private and he confessed to the mayor that he was the one who committed the crime. The mayor asked the accused to repeat his confession to the media. Without his lawyer the accused appellant freely confessed to the media about the crime.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the appellant's extrajudicial confession to the police was admissible in court.
(2) Whether the appellant's extrajudicial confession to the Mayor and the media is admissible in court.
HELD
(1) NO. It was admitted that the accused-appellant was not appraised of his Miranda rights and his confession to police was made without the assistance of counsel. The accused-appellant should have been entitled to the following rights under sec. 12 of the Bill of Rights:1. To remain silent2. To have competent and independent counsel of his choice3. To be informed of such rights these rights may only be waived
(1) Voluntarily,
(2) Expressly,
(3) In the presence of counsel and
(4) In writing. Likewise, since the victim's belongings were found based on this invalid extrajudicial confession, they should also be inadmissible in court since such evidence are the fruits of the poisonous tree.
(2) YES, because he made his confession to the mayor and the media freely, spontaneously and voluntarily. There was no evidence either that the mayor or the media were under duress or influenced by the police to elicit a confession from the accused. As for the accused, he reiterated the same confession to the media when they repeatedly interviewed him to get his side of the story. The accused did not protest to those interviews, even when he had every opportunity to do so as they were conducted on separate days. The Court reiterated that the Bill of Rights only protects the individual from undue interference of the State and its agents. It does not concern itself with the relations of private individuals. In the case of the accused, his confession to the mayor and news reporters who were private individuals, thereby making his extrajudicial confession to them admissible in court.
JUDICIAL QUESTION:
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the court’s judgment of the issuance of warrants against the accused, was a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
The Court had said that the appellants can no longer question their arrest since they have already entered the plea. They questions about their arrest has already been waived since their questions about their arrest were opened only after the plea has begun.
nagseparate po sila, Sir. sorry. Post ko na lang ulit as one.
DeleteAblan, Kristine Yvonne
ReplyDeletePeople V.S Anthony Escordial
FACTS
Darunday, the rape victim did not have any idea how the suspect look liked because she was blindfolded at the time the rape was committed by the suspect, the suspect is talking to the victim while the rape is going on that's why the only thing that the victim recognize is the suspects voice and rough skin. The roommate claimed she saw the suspect even though she is also blindfolded because of the light that filtered from the lamp and that's how she gave a physical description of the suspect to the police. The police found the suspect, the suspect was brought to the police station and the victim is already at the station. The suspect suddenly blushed when he saw the rape victim and he asked her if she really knew him but the victim didn't reply to his question. The victim confirmed that he is the guy who raped him because he recognized the voice of the suspect and also because of the rough skin and keloid at the back of the suspects’ neck.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused was lawful.
(2)Whether the accused Miranda rights were violated.
HELD
(1) NO. He was arrested while he was watching a basketball game. He was not caught in flagrante delicto. Neither was he arrested immediately after the consummation of the crime because he was only “invited” for questioning a week after the incident. However, the defect was cured when he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
(2) YES, insofar as he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation. Nevertheless, the Court noted that the accused did not, at any time, admit to committing the crime, even when he claimed that he was being tortured by the police. Therefore, there was no uncounselled confession obtained from him.
The Court also found that, although the out-of-court identification of the accused was inadmissible as evidence since he was not assisted by counsel at that time, the in-court identification was definitely a valid ground for his conviction. In fact, it was actually the in-court identification that formed the basis for the RTC's decision, not the out-of-court identification.
ABLAN, KRISTINE YVONNE
ReplyDelete2ND CASE
People V.S. Pablito Andan
FACTS
The accused appellant was accused of rape with homicide. When the police asked him, he claimed he was only a look-out for his two neighbors who he claimed perpetrators. He also told the the police where the two nieghbors hid the victims belongings. He asked to speak with the Mayor in private and he confessed to the mayor that he was the one who committed the crime. The mayor asked the accused to repeat his confession to the media. Without his lawyer the accused appellant freely confessed to the media about the crime.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the appellant's extrajudicial confession to the police was admissible in court.
(2) Whether the appellant's extrajudicial confession to the Mayor and the media is admissible in court.
HELD
(1) NO. It was admitted that the accused-appellant was not appraised of his Miranda rights and his confession to police was made without the assistance of counsel. The accused-appellant should have been entitled to the following rights under sec. 12 of the Bill of Rights:1. To remain silent2. To have competent and independent counsel of his choice3. To be informed of such rights these rights may only be waived
(1) Voluntarily,
(2) Expressly,
(3) In the presence of counsel and
(4) In writing. Likewise, since the victim's belongings were found based on this invalid extrajudicial confession, they should also be inadmissible in court since such evidence are the fruits of the poisonous tree.
(2) YES, because he made his confession to the mayor and the media freely, spontaneously and voluntarily. There was no evidence either that the mayor or the media were under duress or influenced by the police to elicit a confession from the accused. As for the accused, he reiterated the same confession to the media when they repeatedly interviewed him to get his side of the story. The accused did not protest to those interviews, even when he had every opportunity to do so as they were conducted on separate days. The Court reiterated that the Bill of Rights only protects the individual from undue interference of the State and its agents. It does not concern itself with the relations of private individuals. In the case of the accused, his confession to the mayor and news reporters who were private individuals, thereby making his extrajudicial confession to them admissible in court.
Sir pinasend po ito sa akin ni Yvonne
DeleteDECISION:
ReplyDeleteWHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED, but the award of moral damages is DELETED. Cost against appellants.
Mendoza, Gabriel
ReplyDelete1LM3
People of the Philippines v. Pablo De La Cruz
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pablo De La Cruz, Defendant Appellant
Judicial Question:
. The punishment imposed was wholly disproportionate to the crime committed.
Fact:
. Eduardo Bernardo Jr. went to the De La Cruz's store in sampaloc, manila on October 14 1950 and purchased 6 oz tin of carnation milk for thirty centavos which was 10 centavos more than the ceiling price.
. Pablo De La Cruz was not in good terms with Ruperto Austria, which the purchase was for.
. The matter reached the City Fiscal's office and De La Cruz was imprisoned for 5 years and to pay a fine of 5,00 pesos plus costs.
. The constitution clearly states that "excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted"
Result:
. The penalty was decreased to six months and a fine of 2,000 pesos.
mecitas, john vincent
ReplyDeletePeople vs. Rene Lamsing - GR 105316, September 21, 1995
Facts: Rene Lamsing was accused of killing the security guard on a construction site in cubao, during the investigation was made to join a police line-up in a police station. He was identified as culprit among those lined up by a witness.
Issue: whether accused miranda’s rights were violated when the witness identified him from the police line up.
Held: No, a police line-up does not form part of the custodial investigation. Therefore, the accused cannot yet invoke his rights in such instances.
Camille Anne E. Duterte, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN TIDULA, VICTORIO TIDULA, DOMINGO GATO, SALVACION GATO, and JOSE PRIOR, accused-appellants, [G.R. No. 123273. July 16, 1998]
ReplyDeleteFACTS: 6:45 PM of August 31, 1992, Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta, son of Marilyn Manubag, the complainant, was found dead in the bathroom of their house, where his mouth was stuffed with a handkerchief, his body has stab wounds. The autopsy report concluded that the cause of death of the victim was cardio-respiratory arrest, next only to multiple stab wounds and cervical fracture. On that night also, a cassette-recording worth P3000 cannot be found in their room, along with two jackets, worth P4000 and an amount of cash missing. Via a police investigation on September 7, 1992, Pablo Genosa broke his silence by conceding all he knew of the crime.11 in the morning of August 21, 1992, accused Ruben Tidula, Domingo Gato and Victorio Tidula went to his home in Brgy. Nanga, Guimbal, Iloilo. They invited him to join in a plan to kill Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta and his mother Marilyn Manubag. Salvacion Gato would accordingly pay P2,000.00 for the accomplishment of the plan. However, he asked why it was too small an amount for the heavy job; he was told after that they will hold a hold-up so that they could earn more. On August 24, 1992, they were prepared to conduct the plan, however failed since there were a lot of people in the place, and that there was too much light in the area. It was learned that the reason behind the desire of Salvacion Gato to kill the victim. It rooted in a market quarrel, where the victim accordingly threatened to kill the daughters of Salvacion Gato. Upon learning about the threat, she decided that they would rather have them killed before they even get to kill her daughters. The plan was reset on August 29, 1992, where it was another Monday. As Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta arrives and opens the padlock of the gate, the accused Ruben Tidula and Jose Prior appeared and approached him and pointed their single shot armalite hand gun and knife at him. They entered the house through the back door. 15 minutes passed, Ruben Tidula and Jose Prior went out of the house and were met by Pablo Genosa and Victorio Tidula outside. They were told to leave for the victim Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta has already been killed by them and Domingo Gato had then left. Pablo Genosa,now witness, noticed that Ruben Tidula and Domingo Gato were already wearing jackets and Jose Prior was already carrying a cassette recorder. On September 2, 1992, Domingo Gato gave the witness Genosa his share of P2,000.00 and was told to prepare for leaving the place for the following day. The Defense held that the witness’s statements were mere fabrication, and that each of them had their own businesses during that time of the crime and were nowhere possibly involved in it.
ISSUES:
Whether or not, the constitutional rights of the appellants were violated during the custodial investigation.
Whether or not the court’s judgment of the issuance of warrants against the accused, was a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
Whether or not the court was wrong in discharging the accused Pablo Genosa in using him to frame up and charge all the accused, given a reward and promise by the other party involved.
Whether or not the court was wrong in convicting the accused, given inconsistencies on the part of the witness, Pablo Genosa,
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED, but the award of moral damages is DELETED. Cost against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
JUDICIAL QUESTION:
Whether or not the court’s judgment of the issuance of warrants against the accused, was a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
The Court had said that the appellants can no longer question their arrest since they have already entered the plea. They questions about their arrest has already been waived since their questions about their arrest were opened only after the plea has begun.
Jerlline Mozel Braga
ReplyDeletePeople vs. Bermas
Facts:
On the 3rd day of August 1994, Manuela Bermas, who was 15 years old at that time, testified that he was raped by her own father, Rufino Bermas, while she was lying down on a bed inside their house at Creek Drive II, San Antonia Valley 8, Parañaque. The accused armed with a knife removed the victim’s shorts and panty, got on top of her, inserted his penis in the the victim’s vagina and started the sexual assault. After the accused has satisfied his lustful desires, he threatened the victim that he will kill her if he reported the incident to anyone.
On August 4, 1994 the complainant was medically examined at the NBI and the findings concluded that “1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination; 2. Hymen, intact but distensible and its orifice wide as to allow complete penetration by an average sized, adult, Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any hymental laceration”
The accused denied the allegation and told the court that he loves his daughter, the complainant, so much and he will not do anything to hurt his children. The accused further testified that the allegation by the complainant was only revenge against him because he kept on scolding the complaint because she frequently comes home late.
The married daughter of the accused and also the sister of the complainant, who testified for the behalf of the accused, said that the complainant was a liar for the reason that the complainant did not come home in the night of August 3, 1994 so the alleged rape cannot be true.
On the day of the arraignment on October 3, 1994, the accused was brought before the trial court without counsel. The court thereupon assigned him Atty. Villamin of PAO but she asked the court to relieve of her duty as a counsel de oficio. So the accused was assigned a new counsel de oficio, Atty. Gomez who did not showed up to defend the accused. And for the 3rd time he was assigned a new counsel de oficio Atty. Fernandez, Jr.
On the 2nd day of May 1995, The trial court sentenced the accused GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime rape and sentenced the accused to suffer DEATH PENALTY and was asked to pay the complainant the amount of P75, 000.00
Judicial question: Was the accused privileged with a due process?
Resolution:
The Accused-appelant appealed that he was deprieved from due process because he was denied of his constitutional right to have an effective and vigilant counsel. The accused had to defend himself in the court without a counsel who is knowledgeable about subject.
The court sees no other choice than to direct the remand of the case to the court a quo a new trial.
Pearl Soriano 1LM3
ReplyDeleteI
1. ) G.R. No. 155037.
April 29, 2005
ANVIL ENSEMBLES GARMENT, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SEVENTEENTH DIVISION), NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. CRESENCIO RAMOS, JR., in his capacity as LABOR ARBITER, and MELECIO BONABON, Respondents.
Ponente:
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
FACTS:
On exactly January, 7, 1997, Malecio Bonabon was hired in a probationary basis as the company driver of the petitioner Anvil Ensemble Garment. On March, 25, 1997, the petitioner recommended the respondent not to work anymore after he received a monthly salary of P4,500.00. No explanation was made by the petitioner. Because of the scarcity of jobs, the respondent pleaded to keep his work but his appeal was left unheard. Due the aforesaid, a complaint for Illegal Dismissal was filed on September, 3, 1997, by the respondent.
A joint affidavit of Sally Duquilla and Marrivic Santos was submitted to the Labor Arbiter by the petitioner. According to the said affidavit, the respondent and a certain Sarrah Pagaduan were sent to the Trish Enterprise to pick up a cutting machine to be brought or delivered to the petitioner's premises as was declared by Santos and Duquila. The cutting machine was extensively damaged and is allegedly said to be due to the respondent's negligence in handling it. And expense of P8,000.00 was inccured on the petitioner as a result for the repair. Due to the said facts, the respondent was allegedly dismissed for the said negligence.
Issue:
I.
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal.
II.
Whether a procedural due process was afforded to the respondent when the petitioner terminated his employment.
III.
Whether there is a substantial evidence to prove the validity and whether it is a just cause in the part of the petitioner to effect the respondent’s dismissal.
IV.
Whether there is a substantial reason for reconsideration.
V.
Whether the dismissal is illegal or merely defective.
VI.
Whether the respondent's dismissal is rooted in a valid ground and whether it is factual in nature.
Decision:
Ruling of the Arbiter
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the complainant’s dismissal from employment as illegal.
So ordered.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
WHEREFORE, the decision dated November 23, 1999 of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of attorney’s fees is DELETED.
So ordered.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
So ordered.
Montanez, Lester Theo P.
ReplyDelete1LM3
GR L-26734, September 5 1967
PEOPLE, plaintiff, appellant VS PADERNAL, defendant-appellee
FACTS:
- 4th of January, 1961, Panfilo Padernal was charged with criminal liability of homicide by Asst. Provincial Fiscal Eleodoro G. Alvero CFI of Ormoc City.
- Padernal was accused of homicide in connection with the death of Brigido Rodila.
- The accused pleaded guilty
- Accused claimed the following circumstances: 1.) Incomplete self-defense; 2.) Lack of education and instruction; 3.) Voluntary surrender; and 4.) spontaneous plea of guilty
- He was charged with homicide, on the ground of reasonable doubt
- There was a bet between the accused and the deceased in a hantak game where the accused won.
- It was claimed that after the accused won the bet, he was wounded in the right arm and in the head by the bolo belonging to the deceased (Rodila) and this occurred during the scuffle in order to wrest the bolo that was in the possession of the deceased who was responsible for the unlawful aggression. When the accused wrested the bolo from the deceased, in order to defend himself, he struck the deceased who was then advancing notwithstanding the fact that the bolo was already in the possession of the accused. Thus,the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense shall be considered in favor of the accused for the imposition of the penalty.
"Appellants’ contention is that defendant, having pleaded guilty, cannot be acquitted and that there was no trial on the merits but only a hearing to establish mitigating circumstances. In People v. Balisacan, L-26376, August 31, 1966, this Court ruled that where the accused pleads guilty and proceeds, in a hearing to prove mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, to state facts constituting full and complete self-defense, the trial judge should declare his plea of guilty thereby withdrawn, order that a plea of not guilty be entered and proceed to trial on the merits. For failure, in the Balisacan case, to follow this procedure, We ruled therein that there was deprivation of day in court against the prosecution. An acquittal on the merits thus made without the requisite trial providing sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, was held improper. And in said Balisacan case, We held that the right to appeal existed in favor of the prosecution because there was in effect no plea, since the testimony of the defendant operated to withdraw his plea of guilty and the trial court failed to order that a plea of not guilty be entered in its place; and because there was no due process in proceeding to dispose of the case on the merits without trial on the merits. And thus, without a standing plea, and without due process, double jeopardy was not attendant to bar the appeal therein.."
ISSUE:
- An appeal by the prosecution from a decision acquitting the accused. At issue is the purely legal question of whether the principle of double jeopardy bars this appeal.
RESOLUTION:
- WHEREFORE, the present appeal is hereby dismissed for being barred by the principle of double jeopardy. No costs. So ordered.
Second half ng kay pearlsoriano:
ReplyDeleteFinal Decision
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated January 18, 2002 and Resolution dated August 23, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58301 are AFFIRMED in toto.
So ordered.
2)
G.R. No. 170464 ,
July 12, 2010
LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS AND JEWELRY CORPORATION AND LAMBERT LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. HELEN BINAMIRA, RESPONDENT.
Ponente:
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
A Malaysian national petitioner, Lambert Lim is operating Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation and other various businesses in Cebu and Bohol. Rhodora Binamira is married to Lim, she is also a daughter of Atty. Boler Binamira, Sr., who is also the counsel and father-in-law of respondent Helen Binamira. Helen was hired by Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation as an appraiser in the Tagbilaran branch on July 1995 and as a vault custodian in 1996. A letter of termination from Lim was received by Helen on September, 14, 1998, that is said to be effective that very same day. Business losses necessitating retrenchment was cited by Lim as the reason for the termination. Thus filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioners docketed as NLRC RAB-VII CASE NO. 01-0003-99-B. According to Helen’s Position Paper she alleged that she was dismissed without cause and the benefit of due process. She also claimed that she was a mere casualty of the war of attrition between Lim and the Binamira family. Moreover, she claimed that there was no proof that the company was suffering from business losses.
The petitioners asserted that they had no choice but to retrench respondent due to economic reverses as was stated on their Position Paper. The corporation suffered a marked decline in profits as well as substantial and persistent increase in losses. In its Statement of Income and Expenses, its gross income for 1998 dropped from P1million to P665,000.00.
Issue:
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
I.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing, through the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari, the findings of facts of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the dismissal of respondent was with valid and legal basis.
II.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing, through the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari, the unanimous findings of fact of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the dismissal of respondent was not attended by bad faith or fraud.
may third page pa pala ung kay pearl soriano
ReplyDeleteIII.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing, through the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari, the findings of facts of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based merely on the allegations and evidences made and submitted by the former counsel, adviser and business partner of petitioners.
Decision:
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered judgment is hereby rendered declaring the respondent not guilty of illegally terminating the complainant but is however directed to pay the complainant her retrenchment benefit in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P7,500.00), considering that she was receiving a monthly salary of P5,000.00 and rendered service for three (3) years.
So ordered.
Ruling of the NLRC
WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 26 November 1999 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and respondents are ordered to reinstate complainant Helen Binamira to her former position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages from the time of her dismissal up to the promulgation of this decision.
Other claims are denied for lack of merit.
So ordered.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of November [sic] 27, 2002 is hereby SET ASIDE and a New One Entered declaring as valid the redundancy of the position of the complainant. Accordingly respondent is hereby ordered to pay the complainant her redundancy pay of one month for every year of service and in lieu of notice, she should also be paid one (1) month salary as indemnity.
So ordered.
Final Decision of the Court of Appeals
WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated July 30, 2003 and May 31, 2004 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. V-000454-00 (RAB VII-01-0003-99-B), is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
So ordered.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDela Paz, Nelle
ReplyDelete(1)
Title: People of the Philippines vs. Raul Rubares y Carolino
G.R. No. 143127 November 29, 2001
Question: Is Raul Ruballes really guilty of killing Ariel Matienza last March 6, 1999?
Facts: Last March 5 1995 in Pasay City, it was said by the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court that Raul Rubares y Carolino intended to kill and stab Ariel Atienza and because of his wound, this caused Atienza’s death. The prosecution presented six witnesses namely Daniel Macawili, Armando Llanes, Imelda Malaloan, Dr. Audie Czar Cipriano, Dr. Wilfredo Tierra, and Police Inspector Aurelio Binamira. According to Daniel Macawili who is a fruit vendor and is a resident in Pasay said that last March 6,1999 around 3 AM he went to Seven Eatery after a while he joined men playing cara y cruz. 6:30 AM Raul was behind him and then approached Ariel who is a tricycle driver and waiting for passengers, then Raul came close and stabbed Ariel once at the right side lower back using an ice-pick, with blade measuring more or less six inches then after that immediately ran then Ariel was brought to Pasay City General Hospital. Daniel claimed that he is a witness to this crime because he was just meter away from Ariel and Raul. According to Armando Llanes who is also a resident in Pasay and he was a pedicab driver. Last March 9, 1999 around 6 AM infront of Seven Eatery he was playing cara y cruz with his 20 fellowmen. He said he noticed that Raul arrived and went near them. After a few minutes Armando heard the conversation between Baba and Ariel saying that Baba’s telling Ariel that he was wounded and asked who did that to him and Ariel answered it was Raul who did that and described the appearance of Raul. After the incident Armado didn’t see Raul at that time already. Armado and men who were playing helped Ariel be rushed to the hospital, but after Armado knew Ariel died already. According to the live-in partner of Ariel, Imelda Malaloan said that last March 6, 1999 around 8 AM she was in their hous when Jacklyn Apolo told her that Ariel was stabbed. After hearing that she immediately ran to the emergency room of the Pasay General Hospital and by the time she arrived Ariel was still alive and told him that Raul stabbed him after that while Ariel was undergoing an operation he died. According to the doctor of Pasay City General Hospital, Dr. Audie Czar Cipriano around 6:40 on that day, Ariel suffered a stab wound on the tight side if his chest his blood pressure of 0/0 and cardiac rate of 0/0 and a respiratory plus rate of three per minute. He found a decrease of breath sound in his right chest, signifying that there was a massive hemothorax or bleeding that’s why he inserted a closed tube thoracotomy and blood flowed from the tube.
ReplyDeletePEOPLE vs. LODRIGO BAYYA
G.R. No. 127845.
March 10, 2000
Facts:
The said accused armed with a knife, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge with his own daughter ROSIE S. BAYYA for several times against the latters will and consent.
Issue: Whether there was a transgression of Bayya’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.
Resolution: The judgment of conviction under review is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant LODRIGO BAYYA is adjudged guilty of simple rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the victim, ROSIE S. BAYYA,P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto, apart from P50,000.00 as moral damages and P 25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against the appellant. SO ORDERED.
(2)After all of that, Ariel’s condition did not improve and while undergoing an operation Ariel died. The immediate cause of Ariel’s death was massive blood loss because of linear stab wound of 1.5 cms located at the 9th intercostal space, posterior axillary line caused by the sharp pointed instrument. According to Wilfredo Tierra who is a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation Imelda request for an autopsy. The result of the autopsy that the cause of Ariel’s death was a stab wound measuring 1.5 cms at the right side of his lower back which penetrated his thoracic cavity and the right hemi-diaphragm and lacerated the right lobe of his liver and this was not because of an ice-pick but a knife. Dr. Tierra said that it was possible that Ariel and Raul were both standing during the incident. On the other hand Raul defended himself and his live-in partner Corazon Mileto. Raul testified that he and his family went to bed at around 8 PM of that day and woke up at around 8AM because he was roused by Corazon telling him that Ariel was missing and the barangay captain ad Toto his brother was looking for him. Corazon told Raul that there was a killing incident outside them. At around 7PM Raul said that Gido Hermosa told him that their friend Ramon “Bebot” Alcones was killed by a relative of Ariel Atienza. Raul was frightened by this happenings that’s why he and his family went to Cavite and stayed at Corazon’s aunt. On March 18, 1999 Raul knew from the barangay officials that there were four armed people who’s looking for him and one of them was Toto Barquilla whos was arrested. He was invited to the police station and later turned over to SPO4 Binamira of Pasay City Police Station. Raul claimed at the police station that Malaloan, Macawili, Llanes were told by SPO4 Binamira to point him as the one who did the crime.
ReplyDelete(3) He said that it was only the first time he met Macawili and Llanes at the police station and claimed that Toto Barquilla hold grudges towards him because he refused to join them in selling drugs. According to Corazon, that she and Raul went to bed at around 8PM and woke up at 8AM the next day. While they were sleeping someone was knocking and she opened the door and saw Toto and a barangay tanod who was looking for Raul that’s why he woke up Raul and told him about the visitors. Corazon said that their neighbors were talking about Ariel was killed. Around 6PM Gido Hermosa came to them and said Ramon Aliones was shot and killed and Ramon warned him that he was the next to be killed by Ariel’s relatives. Because of that they were frightened and they went to Cavite and stayed there with Corazon’s aunt until March 18, 1999 when a barangay official came. Raul was arrested and told him that there was a complaint against him and after that he was turned over to Pasay City Police Station. Corazon denied that Raul was the one who killed Ariel because Raul was sleeping with her when the crime was happening.
ReplyDeleteResolution: WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109, Pasay City is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Raul Rubares y Carolino is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Ariel Atienza, P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as indemnity.
Yeom, Sarang
ReplyDelete1LM3
G.R. No. 73603 June 22, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FELICISIMO HERNANDEZ and CARLOS IMPERIAL, accused-appellants.
JUDICIAL QUESTION:
Whether or not the evidence is admissible?
FACT:
On suspicion for participation in the distribution and sale of marijuana in the locality, Felicisimo Hernandez and Carlos Imperial were placed under surveillance until they were arrested on July 20. Marijuana leaves in a matchbox were in the possession of Rizaldy Angcaya who was an informer, allegedly purchased the same from Hernandez. They were charged for the violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 which is known as "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
The trial court erred by admitting extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant. It is inadmissible because it was obtained by violating the constitutional right of the accused-appellant. Also, the court erred by not declaring that the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court thus finds that the extrajudicial confession of appellant is inadmissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment is hereby rendered acquitting accused-appellant Carlos Imperial with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTarnate, Mariele
ReplyDeleteTitle : TATAD VS. SANDIGANBAYAN [159 SCRA 70; G.R. NOS. L-72335-39; 21 MAR 1988]
Facts: The complainant, Antonio de los Reyes, initially filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) on October 1974, containing charges of alleged violations of Rep. Act No. 3019 against then Secretary of Public Information Francisco S. Tatad. The "report" was made to "sleep" in the office of the PSC until the end of 1979 when it became widely known that Secretary (then Minister) Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos and had resigned from the Cabinet. On December 12, 1979, the 1974 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April 1, 1980 which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. Marcos by referring the complaint to the CIS, Presidential Security Command, for investigation and report. On June 16, 1980, the CIS report was submitted to the Tanodbayan, recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister Tatad and Antonio L. Cantero. By October 25, 1982, all affidavits and counter-affidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the Tanodbayan. However, it was only on June 5, 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan. Five criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 12, 1985, all against petitioner Tatad alone. (1) Section 3, paragraph (e) of RA. 3019 for giving D' Group, a private corporation controlled by his brother-in-law, unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions; (2) Violation of Section 3, paragraph (b) for receiving a check of P125,000.00 from Roberto Vallar, President/General Manager of AmityTrading Corporation as consideration for the release of a check of P588,000.00 to said corporation for printing services rendered for the Constitutional Convention Referendum in 1973; (3) Violation of Section 7 on three (3) counts for his failure to file his Statement of Assets andLiabilities for the calendar years 1973, 1976 and 1978. A motion to quash the information was made alleging that the prosecution deprived accused of due process of law and of the right to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against him. It was denied hence the appeal.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused.
Decision: Accordingly, the Court Resolved to give due course to the petition and to grant the same. The information in Criminal Cases Nos. 10499, 10500, 10501, 10502 and 10503, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Francisco S. Tatad" are hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on October 22, 1985 is made permanent.
SO ORDERED.
Macabali, Joshua
ReplyDeletePEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO MADARANG y MAGNO, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 132319
May 12, 2000
332 SCRA 99
Judicial Question:
Whether or not mental instability affects the actions and decision making of a man [to commit a crime(murder)], which exempts him from any liabilities of the said action.
Facts:
-At the initial hearing of the case on May 5, 1994, the accused's counsel manifested that his client had been observed behaving in an abnormal manner inside the provincial jail.(G.R. No. 132319)
-The initial examination of the accused at the NCMH revealed that he was suffering from a form of psychosis known as schizophrenia. The accused was detained at the hospital and was administered medication for his illness. (G.R. No. 132319)
-A witness claims that before the crime was committed, she has not seen anything peculiar to the accused's behavior.
-The accused claims that he has no memory of the stabbing he committed.
-The second medical report still shows the accused having schizophrenia
-the accused says that he has no motive to kill Lilia who was about to give birth to their eight child 3 days prior to the killing
Resolution:
In all civilized nations, an act done by a person in a state of insanity cannot be punished as an offense. The insanity defense is rooted on the basic moral assumption of criminal law. Man is naturally endowed with the faculties of understanding and free will. The consent of the will is that which renders human actions laudable or culpable. Hence, where there is a defect of the understanding, there can be no free act of the will. An insane accused is not morally blameworthy and should not be legally punished. No purpose of criminal law is served by punishing an insane accused because by reason of his mental state, he would have no control over his behavior and cannot be deterred from similar behavior in the future.
ano po yung issue dito? thank you po
DeleteCatacutan, Jan Alexa C.
ReplyDelete2nd Case:
People vs Buhat
G.R. No. 119601.
December 17, 1996
Facts:
The information alleged that on October 16, 1992, petitioner Danilo Buhat, armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon George Yu while the said two unknown assailants held his arms, “using superior strength, mortal wounds which were the direct cause of his death.”
Issue:
The issue of whether or not the questioned amendment to the information is procedurally infirm.
Resolution:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The City Prosecutor of Roxas City is HEREBY ORDERED to file the correct Amended Information fully in accordance with the findings of fact set forth in the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, dated February 3, 1994, and in disregard of the finding of the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated March 28, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP No. 35554 to the effect that “Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are one and the same person.”
SO ORDERED.
Jerome Lyle C. Estipona
ReplyDeleteG.R. No. 127566, November 22, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EULALIO PADIL
Facts:
Cherilyn Magos (13 years old)was raped by her maternal grandfather once every night, sometimes twice a night.
First record is in April 1992 while the wife of the accused is not in their house Cherilyn was sleeping with her auntie Aireen, who was sleeping next to the accused. The accused transfer on her back and raped her.
It happen again after 4 years on March 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1996.
March 18 1996, the accused raped Cherilyn twice at about 9:00pm and 10:00 pm.
Cherilyn wrote a letter to her Mother Teresita Padil that her grandfather is raping her, and ask for help.
Resolution:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant Eulalio Padil is ordered to pay the offended party Cherilyn Magos in Criminal Cases Nos. 96-05-146; 96-05-148; 96-05-149; 96-05-151; 96-05-152; 96-05-153; 96-05-154; 96-05-155 the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and in Criminal Case No. 96-05-150 the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 a moral damages; and is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 96-05-147.
In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon the finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for his reference in case he decides to exercise his prerogative of mercy. No pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Santiago, Rosal Benedette C.
ReplyDeleteG.R. No. L-32328, September 30, 1977
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANO MALOTO: ALDINA MALOTO CASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, PURIFICACION MIRAFLOR, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MOLO, and ASILO DE MOLO, petitioners-appellants
vs.
FELINO MALOTO and FELINO MALOTO, oppositors-appellees.
Ramon C. Zamora, Lorenzo E. Coloso, Jose L. Castigador, Arthur Defensor & Sixto Demaisip and Flores, Macapagal, Ocampo & Balbastro for petitioners-appellants.
Nacianceno G. Rico & Felipe G. Espinosa for oppositors-appellees.
Facts: Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Panfilo Maloto, and Felino Maloto, niece and nephews, respectively, of Adriana Maloto, in the belief that decedent died intestate, commenced on November 4, 1963 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an intestate proceeding. They partitioned the properties of Adriana among themselves, and said partition was approved by the court. Four years later, petitioners Aldina and Constancio, went to the same court asking to re-open the case claiming that Adriana actually left a will. They moved for the annulment of the intestate proceeding and the allowance of the said will. Panfilo and Felino did not agree with the motion. The court dismissed the motion on the ground that it was filed out of time. Petitioners filed before the Supreme Court petition for certiorari and mandamus which was later dismissed by the Court saying that the proper remedy was to file a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will. Petitioners then filed with Court of First Intance of Iloilo a petition for probate of the said will, but the court dismissed the same on the ground of res adjudicata and that the earlier intestate proceeding had made a finding that the will of the decedent was destroyed and revoked.
Issue: Whether or not the petition for probate was barred by the judgment of an earlier intestate proceeding.
Held: No, the Court ruled that the petition for probate of the alleged will was the proper remedy, and should not have been dismissed. The earlier intestate proceeding is not a bar for the petition for probate of the will as to constitute res adjudicata. The court also ruled that it was not proper for the court in the intestate proceeding to make a finding that the discovered will had been destroyed and revoked.
Resolution: WHEREFORE, the order dated April 13, 1970 dismissing the petition for the probate of the alleged will of Adriana Maloto is hereby set aside and the lower court is directed to proceed with the hearing of the petition in Special Proceeding No. 2176 on the merits, with costs against the respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Arianna Laine T. Sarmiento.
ReplyDeletePEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Remo Dino, accused-appellant.
No. L-41462 April 15, 1988
Facts: In this case, the accused-appellant Remy Dino together with Jose Dequito and Salvador Dequito were found guilty Rape with Homicide of a certain Melinda Boglosa (a resident of Tambuelan, Municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo), and was sentenced to three penalties of reclusion perpetua and indemnify to pay the heirs of Melinda Boglosa, jointly and severally the sum of P12, 000.00 and to pay the costs. The conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of Roberto Dumancas, a ten-year old boy and a relative of Remy Dino (also a resident of Tambuelan, Municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo) that he saw Jose and Salvador Dequito and Remy Dino at a distance of 50 meters away taking turns in raping the victim and when they are finished in raping her, Salvador Dequito choked her with an engine cranker and struck her on the forehead causing her death. This testimony was supported by a Necropsy Report conducted by an NBI Medico-Legal Officer.
Originally this was an appeal of the three accused from the Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III, but Jose Dequito and Salvador Dequito both filed an Urgent Motion to withdraw Appeal on November 26, 1985.
Issues:
1. Whether or not a Judge has a right to decide a case based on evidence presented before the first judge who resigned without deciding the case.
2. Whether or not the court erred in giving weight and credence on the testimony of the only eye witness Roberto Dumancas who was only ten years old.
3. Whether or not the right of the accused to be informed of his Constitutional Rights to remain silent and to counsel as prescribed safeguards in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution and his Extra-Judicial Confession was inadmissible.
Held:
1. No. There is no law that precludes a judge from deciding a cased based on evidence presented before the first judge who resigned without deciding on the case.
2. No. There is no error in giving weight and credence to the testimony of Roberto Dumancas for he had positively identified the accused-appellant.
3. Yes. The confession was inadmissible because the appellant was not informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel.
Resolution: Wherefore, the judgement appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, except that the indemnity to the heirs of the victim Melinda Boglosa, is hereby increased to P20, 000.00. With one-third (1/3) of the cost against the accused-appellant, Remy Dino.
Ablan, Kristine Yvonne
ReplyDeletePeople V.S Juanito Baloloy
FACTS
Dead body of 11years old Genelyn was found by the accused appellant in the nearby creek, while he was catching some frogs. The people who also arrived at the scence saw a black rope. The accuse appellant claimed it was his. The appellant confesed that he was the one responsible for raping and killing Genelyn, he also said that he was "demonized" when he committed the crime. He was convicted and sentenced to death.
ISSUE
Whether the accused's extrajudicial confession to Brgy. Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon violated his rightagainst self-incrimination.
HELD
NO, as far as his confession to Ceniza is concerned. When the accused admitted ownership of the rope andconfessed the commission of the crime to Ceniza, he did so voluntarily, free of coercion or control from theauthorities. He also confessed before he was arrested or placed under investigation. What is prohibited by theConstitution is the compulsory disclosure of information that would incriminate the accused while he is in thecustody of the authorities.As for his confession to Judge Dicon, it was deemed inadmissible as evidence because Judge Dicon failed toinform him of his rights before he made the confession. Moreover, it was done without the assistance of counsel. It was held that the rights of the accused become operative once custodial investigation starts, which actuallybegins from the time the accused is arrested or voluntarily surrenders to the police. The accused was already inthe custody of the police at the time he made his confession to Judge Dicon. Furthermore, even if no complaintwas yet filed against the accused at that time, the judge should still have honored the rights of the accusedunder the Bill of Rights.However, his confession to the judge is not entirely useless as those who witnessed the confession may stilltestify to this verbal admission by the accused.
Jerome Lyle C. Estipona
ReplyDeleteG.R. No. 73399, November 28, 1986
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
RAMON ABEDES SALGADO
Facts:
-October 2, 1984 and informer went to operatives of Anti-Nicotics Command in Camp Crame.
-Lt. Benito Estipona gathered eight men, half were drug enforcement trainees
-Lt. Estipona assigned Sgt. Angelito Manalo to pose as a marijuana buyer.
-the informer introduced Sgt. Manalo as an interesr buyer to apellant.
-the apellant left momentarily and came back with a marijuana
-Sgt. Manalo paid him ten peso bill, previously treated with dusting powder
Resolution
WHEREFORE, this appeal is hereby DENIED. The trial court's decision is affirmed but the portion thereof which reads 30 years should be eliminated. (People vs. Gonzales, 58 SCRA 266, 271).
SO ORDERED.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBagtang, Marcelino R.
ReplyDeleteFebruary 27, 1976
G.R. No. L-27974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO SALILING,
CONCORDIO JUMADIAO, SERGIO DIANO and RAYMUNDO VILLANUEVA, defendants appellants.
Facts:
Rodrigo Arsenio, along with his wife and kids, were asleep in their house
at Barrio Liberty (Bango) Catarman, Samar at around 3:00 in the morning on Jan. 8, 1966.
It was at that time when her wife was awakened by someone calling her husband's name.
They asked who the person outside was and they claimed that 'I am Cording, Mang Digoy.'
The couple then opened the window to see Antonio Saliling, Concordio Jumadiao, Sergio
Diano and Raymundo Villanueva. His wife, Amada de Pablo had known them for at least
three years or so. Jumadiao told Argenio that he wanted to buy a chicken and that he
wanted to go upstairs for an unknown reason. Thinking that they had no evil intentions,
Argenio let them in. It is at that time when Saliling stabbed argenio in the abdomen
with a bolo. Instinctively, Argenio then put his hand where the stab was and was again,
stabbed in the chest by Diano. Her wife was behind him at that time and so, he cradled
the fallen Argenio. The children was also there, crying. Villuaneve then took a wallet
from the buri bag (bayong) containing sixty pesos that came from the recent sale of copra.
Saliling and Villuaneve knew about that sale that has occured in Jan. 5. Jumadiao and
Villanueva were unarmed. After the money was taken, the four left the house. While
leaving, Diano, who allegedly occupied a portion of Valle's coconut land, said something
about killing all of them 'As long as you will be staying in the land of Dandoy,'
referring to Valle's land. Argenio's wife, Amada, sent her son Carlito to Argenio's
Brother-in-law, Primive Galvez, to notify him of what had happened. Galvez then fetched
Antonio Cahusay, the barrio captain. He was accompanied by Crisostomo Barandino,
Felix Sayde, and Laurente, Openiano, went to Argenio's house. Cahusay then ordered
Barandino, his first rural police sergeant, to investigate the wounded Argenio. He wrote
of the Argenio's statement with a ball pen on a piece of ruled pad paper in Argenio's
dialect which he also thumbmarked. As translated, it read 'I, Rodrigo Argenio, at 3:15
1 was stabbed by Antonio Saliling, they were four of them, namely: Raymundo
Villanueva, Concordio Jumadiao and Sergio Diano inside my house.'Cahusay and Carlito
testified that they heard Rodrigo Argenio saying that we was stabbed by Saliling and
Diano and that there were four of them. Argenio, when asked, also said that he didnt
expect to live through his wounds.Argenio was brought that same morning to the hospital
and was pronounced dead in the afternoon due to peritonitis and hemorrhage.
Issues:
Can a dying person's statement be used as evidence to convict the accused?
Resolution:
The lower courts decision is affirmed with modifications that appellants
Diano, Jumadiao and Villanueva are sentenced to reclusion perpetua and pay to the heirs
of Rodrigo Argenio an indemnity of 12,000Php plus the sum of sixty pesos which was taken
during the robbery. They are liable for three fourths of the costs. The declaration of
the dying person is admitted as evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. It was
deemed trustworthy because 'truth sits on the lips of a dying man.' The declarant was
indeed in the threshold of death, his “mind is induced by the most Powerful
considerations to speak the truth; a situation 80 solemn and so awful is
considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is created by
a positive oath administered in a court of justice.”
Leachon, Marie Rician
ReplyDeleteG.R. No. 1166437 March 3, 1997
The Peaople of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs Pablito Andan y Hernandez- petitioner
En Banc
Facts
(1)The petitioner was accused of the complex crime of rape with homicide. When he was about to asked by the police, he justify that he was only acting as a look out for his two neighbors whoi he justify were the one who did the crime and showed the police where they hid the victims things.
(2)At the same time, Mayor Trinidad of baliuag and the media representatives were at the station waiting for the result of the investigation to be announced.
(3)When the petitioner saw mayor Trinidad, he asked to talked to him in private.
(4) Mayor Trinidad agreed and went to the office of the Chief of the Police, where they had a confidential talk.
(5) He confessed to the mayor that he was definitely the one who committed the crime.
(6) After a while, the mayor opened the door and asked the petitioner to repeat what he have confessed to the media representatives.
(7) Though there was no lawyer representative, the petitioner told the truth to the media when he was about to interview about the crime.
(8) His interview was recorded with videotape and photograph.
Issues on Appeal.
I. Whether the petitioner's illegal confession to the media representatives was allowed in court.
II. Whether the petitioner's illegal confession to the police and the mayor was admissible as evidence.
SC decisions.
1.) SC decided that the confession of the accused-appellant on the media representatives was admissible on the grounds that it was spontaneous and voluntary.
2.) SC decided that the confession of the accused to the police and the mayor was inadmissible on the grounds that a legal counsel was not present thereby violating his right to an attorney.
Final Decision.
In the above mentioned, The SC hereby affirms the decision of the Trial Court. Henceforth, the accused-appellant is found guilty of the complex crime of rape and homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBatadlan, Jenille Lovely R.
ReplyDeleteTITLE: People Vs. Clarin
JUDICIAL QUESTION: Whether or not, Marcos Clarin is guilty of the accusation of raping his own daughter, Violenda Clarin.
FACTS: At the time of the incident in question, the complainant was then 17 years old. She is the legitimate daughter of the accused Marcos Clarin, whose wife, complainant’s mother, is Rustica Casissid The couple have four sons and a daughter, complainant herein being the eldest.
Before the accused and his family came to reside in Sitio Kandalakan, Barrio Kalantukan in the municipality of Bayawan, Negros Oriental, they resided in Isabela, Negros Oriental. While in Isabela, complainant’s hands were asked in marriage by one Alejo Cumbis. But the accused, as the father of the girl refused to allow his daughter to marry said Cumbis. Still, Violenda left their house and lived with Cumbis. After a year of living together, the complainant was left by Cumbis telling him that he will just go on a vacation but never returned. Violenda retuned to her parents but the accused refused to welcome him. But then Marcos clarin agreed to allow her when his wife insisted.
In order to support his family, the accused planted crpd and tobacco plants. The accused also ha a nipa hut near their house.
In the evening of February in 1973, the accused asked permission from his wife to allow Violenda to sleep with him at their nipa hut, giving the reason that he usually had bad dreams or nightmares. It was already 7:00 o’clock that evening when the accused and his daughter went to the nipa hut. Violenda walked ahead of her father while holding the lighted lamp.
The nipa hut was not then filled with tobacco leaves and there was more room for persons to sleep to.
Immediately thereafter, the accused told his daughter remove her panty, pointing at the same time a knife at her. But she did not obey her father. The accused forced him and pointed the knife at her neck. Having thus removed her panty, the accused told his daughter to lay on the floor, but she refused. The accused then forcibly held her hands and pulled her downwards, and made her lie on the floor. It did not take long for the accused to remove his pants. Thereafter, he laid on top of his daughter and forced sexual intercourse with his daughter who felt some pain. After the intercourse, the accused told him not to tell anyone about what had happen.
Francisco, Michaella
ReplyDeletePeople vs Michael bokingo and Reynante Col
G.R. No. 187536E
August 10, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appelle, vs. MICHAEL BOKINGO “ MICHAEL “ and REYNANTE COL.
Accused appellants.
Facts:
On the febuary 29, 2000Noli passion and his wife Elsa owned a pawn shop and some apartment units. That day while elsa was in the masters bedroom she heard a commotion in unit 3 of the apartment which their construction workers resides. When she was about to check, she saw col, she asked why is he inside of her house but col ran towards her and sprayed tear gas and pointed something sharp on her chin which caused her to be wounded , after that Col instructed her to open the volt since they had a pawnshop but she told him that she doesn’t know the combination for the volt she saw Bikongo opened the door and told Col that someone is dead and that they have to leave.Without any doubt Col ran with bokingo and Elsa ran to check what happened in unit 3 to find out that her husband was lying on the kitchen floor with blood and so they went to Angeles university hospital. Bokingo also admitted that he planned to kill passion several days before the incident with Col he also pleaded “ Guilty” while Col pleaded “ Not Guilty” on the 16th of December 2004 the appellant were found guilty beyond unreasonable doubt.
Resolution:
There was not enough evidence that elsa’s statement was true and that col didn’t killed passion. Col also asserts the testimony that they were planning to kill passion for the fact that there was no evidence that the testimony said by bikongo was true and so because of that the court decided to grant col’s appeal and appellant Reynante Col was acquitted on the grounds of reasonable doubt and was immediately released. On the other hand Michael Bokingo was found guilty of homicide and was sentenced from 6 years to 14yrs imprisonment while still the both of them will pay several amounts for the damages and attorney ‘s fees.
Batadlan, Jenille Lovely R.
ReplyDelete(2)Morning of february 17, 1973, after the accused has left the house, Viloenda told her mother what had happen with them. At around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon on the same day, Violenda and her mother went to see Rogelio Casidsid, Brother of Violenda's mother. He investigated his niece and latter confirmed the accusation of raped. Rogelio suggested that Violenda better invited her father to attend the fiesta where the accused could be arrested.
At night that same day, the two went to the fiesta and the barrio captain was there waiting for them. In the past midnight, the four arrived at the municipal building of Bayawan. The policemen arrested the accused and lodged him in the municipal jail.
The next morning, Violenda and her uncle was investigated by the Chief of Police. They went to the Mayor's office and from there, they procedeed to see Dr. Credo, a physician in Bayawan Emergency Hospital.
Dr. Credo examined and her body. The victim told him that he was raped by her father in the evening of february 16, 1973. After the test, Dr. Credo found no injury on the body of the victim. The victim told him that the intercourse was not that hard blow but the accused applied a dagger to her. Dr Credo then said that it was possible that a specimen may have already disappeared because 36 hours had already past.
Dr. credo asked the victim why she only came for examination after two days, and she told him that she could not get out of the place because she was guarded and could not escape from the place.
RESOLUTION: WHEREFORE, We agree with the court a quo that the guilt of appellant for the crime charged has been established beyond reasonable doubt. For want of the necessary number of votes however, the death penalty imposed by the trial court is hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua and with this modification, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with costs.
Judgement affirmed with modification
Patrick Dipol
ReplyDeleteTitle:
GR. No. 101236 January 30, 1992
JULIANA P. YAP, petitioner, vs. MARTIN PARAS and ALFREDO D. BARCELONA, SR., Judge of the 3rd MTC of Glan Malapatan, South Cotabato, respondents.
Facts:
1. Yap (Petitioner) bought the shares of sibling Paras (Defendant).
2. After a couple of years, Paras sold it (the same land) to Saya-ang.
3. It was a clear case of Estafa
4. Yap instituted a criminal complaint to sibling Paras.
5. Paras’ lawyer and consultant was the son of the judge. (Atty Alfredo Barcelona)
6. Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. gave bias decisions because of his son.
7. CASE wase dismissed.
8. Yap appealed to the court of appeals.
This is another dispute among brother and sister concerning selling of shares or property,Yap is the sister of private respondent Paras. On October 31, 1971, according to Yap, Paras sold to her his share in the intestate estate for P300.00. The sale was evidenced by a private document. Nineteen years later, on May 2, 1990, Paras sold the same property to Santiago Saya-ang for P5,000.00. This was evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.Yap upon discovering the deed of sale filed a complaint for estafa against her sibling Paras and Saya-ang with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of General Santos City. 1 On the same date, she filed a complaint for the nullification of the said sale with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City.After investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor instituted a criminal complaint for estafa against Paras with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Glan-Malapatan, South Cotabato, presided by Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr.On April 17, 1991, before arraignment of the accused, the trial judge motu proprio issued an order dismissing the criminal case on the ground that:
. . . after a careful scrutiny of the statements of complainant, Juliana P. Yap and of the respondent Martin Paras and his witnesses, the Court holds and maintained (sic) that there is a prejudicial question to a civil action, which must be ventilated in the proper civil court. In the case of Ras vs. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125, the Supreme Court had already made a pronouncement that "a criminal action for Estafa for alleged double sale of property is a prejudicial question to a civil action for nullity of the alleged Deed of Sale and defense of the alleged vendors of forgeries of their signatures to the Deed." 3
The Court could have referred this petition to the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction under BP 129, but decided to resolve the case directly in view of the peculiar circumstances involved.The Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied on April 30, 1990. She then came to this Court for relief in this special civil action for certiorari.The Court could have referred this petition to the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction under BP 129, but decided to resolve the case directly in view of the peculiar circumstances involved.The petitioner's contention is that where there is a prejudicial question in a civil case, the criminal action may not be dismissed but only suspended. Moreover, this suspension may not be done motu proprio by the judge trying the criminal case but only upon petition of the defendant in accordance with the Rules of Court. It is also stressed that a reversal of the order of dismissal would not bar the prosecution of the accused under the double jeopardy rule because he has not yet been arraigned.The Court notes that the counsel for private respondent Paras who filed the comment in his behalf is the son and namesake of Judge Barcelona. Atty. Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. is employed in the Public Attorney's Office. He has made it of record that he was not the counsel of Paras at the time the questioned order of dismissal was issued by his father. He thus impliedly rejects the charge of bias against his father.Perhaps out of filial loyalty, Atty. Barcelona suggests there may have been a basis for the order in view of the alleged double sale of the property which was being litigated in the regional trial court. He concedes, however, that the order may have been premature and that it could not have been issued motu proprio. Agreeing that double jeopardy would not attach because of the lack of arraignment, he asks that his Comment be considered a motion for the suspension of the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question.The Court has deliberated on the issues and finds that the respondent judge did indeed commit grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio issuing the order of dismissal.
DeleteIssue: Double selling of land property and bias judgements of the court, interfering with just and morale decisions.
Resolution:
The petition is GRANTED. The Order issued by Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. dated April 17, 1991, dismissing Criminal Case No. 1902-G, and the Order dated April 30, 1991, denying the motion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 1902-G is ordered REINSTATED for further proceedings, but to be assigned to a different judge. SO ORDERED.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLibron, Martin Jeus
ReplyDeleteG.R. No. 105667
March 1, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WINIFRED DAVID @ "BUTCH," accused-appellant.
Facts:At around 11:00 a.m. of 12 June 1990(NARCOM) based in Angeles City, The Chief instructed some NARCOM intelligence officers, namely, Pfc. Lauro Mamac, Pfc. Inadio Ibay, Pfc. Danilo Cruz, and Pfc. Arimbuyutan to conduct an entrapment operation against a certain Butch, a resident of Sor Luisa St. Brgy. Virgen de los Remedios, Angeles City, Before undertaking the operation, Lt. Consengco conducted a briefing. A P10.00 bill and two P5.00 bills, to be used as buy-bust money. the members of the team were given their respective roles. Pfc. Lauro Mamac was designed as the poseur-buyer, 5Pfc. Ibay was to be the back-up of Pfc. Mamac,and Pfc. Cruz and Pfc. Arimbuyutan made up the rest of the back-up team.
Thereafter, the members of the team hired a passenger jeep and proceeded to the designated area via the Villa Pampang route. Pfc.Mamac approached a man to whom he intimated his desire to buy marijuana. The man told him that he knew someone selling marijuana and pointed to the accused Winifred David. Pfc. Mamac approached the accused and told him that he wanted to buy marijuana. The accused asked him the quantity he wanted to buy. Pfc. Mamac told him that he would buy ten pesos worth of marijuana. The accused left and came back handing to Pfc. Mamac two small plastic bags of marijuana. In return, Pfc. Mamac gave him the marked bills and immediately took off his cap - a signal which meant that his companions could close in . Pfc. Ibay, Pfc. Cruz, and Pfc. Arimbuyutan came and arrested the accused. Pfc. Ibay recovered from the accused the marked bills while Pfc. Cruz received the marijuana from Pfc. Mamac.
On the other hand, the accused claimed that he was framed. According to him, at about 3:00 p.m. of 12 June 1990, two men, whom he later identified as Pfc. Cruz and Pfc. Ibay. Thinking that they were interested buyers of wood carvings, the accused asked them what they wanted to purchase. The two replied that their manager, wanted to see him. When he approached the car, he noticed that all the men inside it were armed with guns. The accused wanted to escape but a NARCOM agent namely Peter Hernandez, went out of the car and embraced him while Pfc. Danilo Cruz placed the marijuana in the pocket of Winifred David. Pfc. Mamac employed force in arresting him. He tried to free himself but there were people already watching them. his older brother, Ronaldo, approached them and asked what was going on but the NARCOM agents told him not to intervene. The accused was advised by the NARCOM agents to go with them to avoid a scandal.
Pfc. Danilo Cruz declared that he did not fetch the accused from his house on 19 June 1990 and stressed that he was a member of the back-up team whose only role was to arrest the accused if he would attempt to escape. The marijuana was sold to Pfc. Mamac, the poseur-buyer, and was not placed in the pocket of the accused.
Issue: If the claims and allegations of the accused is admissible
Resolution: "The sweeping accusation made by the counsel for the accused against the law enforcers is unfounded, if not irresponsible, since he offered no proof whatsoever in support of his allegations.WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the challenged Decision of Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City in Criminal Case No. 12502 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto."
Dumaliang, Donna Mae Pearl C.
ReplyDelete2nd
title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendant-appellants
Question: Whether or not they may, upon such fact, be held responsible for the death thus caused to Tecson.
Facts: Chief Police Antonio Z. Oanis and Corporal Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a known criminal and escaped convict, to get him dead or alive. As the group taking the route to rizal street, to the suspected house, they went to the room and they have seen a man, they thought it was Balagtas. Oanis and Galanta simultaneously fired him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers, without first making sure that it was really balagtas. The victim turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man. As testified by Irene, the witness.
Both appellants also gave their testimonies. According to Galanta, when oanis seek where the room of Irene was, Briganda gave the information about the whereabouts of Anselmo Balagtas, she said the two was sleeping in the same room. Oanis went to the room and upon opening the curtain covering the door, he said, "if you are Balagtas, stand up." Tecson, as they thought to be Balagtas sit up in Bed, and Oanis fired him. Oanis testified as he was opening the curtain and after having said "If you are Balagtas, Stand up" Galanta fired at Tecson while Tecson was lying on bed. That it was only after seeing Balagtas picking something that Oanis fired at him.
Tecson was killed while asleep. And Both Oanis and Galanta had the time and opportunity to ascertain his identity. The crime committed is not merely criminal negligence, the killing is intentional and not accedental. Both Oanis and Galanta violated Article 11, no. 5 of the revised penal code. According to to it, "A person incurs no liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful of a right or office." Their duty was to arrest Balagtas, get him dead or alive if resistance is offered by him. But due to their impatience in their desire to get Balagtas, they go beyond with their duty by killing Tecson without making sure that it was Balagtas. According to article 69 of the revised penal code, the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall, in such case, be imposed.
Resolution: For all the foregoing, the judgment is modified and appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance above mentioned, and accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision correctional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to pay the heirs of the deceased Serapio Tecson jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000, with costs.
Manalastas, Youki Zirel
ReplyDeleteTitle : People of the Philippines, appellee, vs . Eric Guillermo y Garcia, appellant.
[G.R. No. 147786. January 20, 2004]
Fact : On march 22, 1998 at Sitio Halang, Lornaville, San Roque Antipolo City. The victim Victor Francisco Keyser, was the owner and manager of Keyser Plastic Manufacturing corp. Keyser Plastic shared its building with Greatmore corp. At around 8:00 am the security guard saw Eric G Guillermo enter Keyser Plastic 's but the security guard ignored guillermo because he knew that Guillermo is one of the trusted employees of Keyser Plastics. And later at around 10:00 am the security guard named Romualdo Campos was checking some entries in his logbook when he heard some loud noices coming from keyser platics area but he did not pay much attention to the sound. And accoring to camos appellant Guillermo told him that he had killed Victor Keyser and he need help of campos to carry the corpse to the garbage dump then he will burn it. Then compos shocked by this revelation then he immediately called the police. When the police arrived at the crime scene SPO4 Bautista and SPO1 reyes immediately arrested Guillermo.
Court Decision : The judgement of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City on March 7 2001 , finding appellant Eric Guillermo y Garcia guilty of the murder of Victor Francisco Keyser is affirmed with modification. Appellant sentence is Reduced to Reclusion Perpetua. He is also ordered to heirs of the victim.
Francisco, Michaella
ReplyDeletePEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALEJANDRO LUCERO CORTEL
G.R. No 97936
May 7, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALEJANDRO LUCERO CORTEL
G.R. No 97936
May 7, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES planitif-appelle, vs ALEJANDRO LUCERO CORTEL accused appellant
Facts:
On may 7, 1998 in quezon city, Philippines a robbery happened. Including Dr. Demetrio Z. Madrid as the victim. Dr. Madrid was on his way home with his driver leronzo Bernalez Aleria until 1 man armed with a gun blocked their way the man pushed his driver into the passengers seat there were 2 other men seated at the back while the man drove around the 2 other suspects were starting to get everything from Dr. Madrid Including some of his luxury jewelries ( watch necklace etc.) the man with the gun shot Aleria ( Dr. Madrid’s driver ) after the robbery incident concerned citizens saw Dr. Madrid and Aleria and brought them to the hospital. The suspects took away a total of P 676,000.00 which includes cash diamond and luxury jewelries.
Resolution:
But because there was not enough evidence to prove that lucero was really involve. That even Dr. Madrid could hardly recognize him is a big factor when it is said that the suspects roamed around with Dr. Madrid’s using his car while doing the robbery for three hours without a mask so that means their identity is greatly exposed that it is near impossible that he cannot recognize lucero if he is one of them. Also the constitution doesn’t only requires any counsel but a appropriate and credible counsel which wasn’t given to lucero. Therefore the case of Alejandro Lucero Cortel which is being accused of robbery and homicide was reversed and set aside.
Manalastas, Youki Zirel
ReplyDeletePeople of the Philippines appellee, vs. Marlon Ortillas y Gamlanga, appellant.
[G.R. No. 137666 May 20, 2004]
Fact : In the morning of December 21, 1994 at Plaza Quezon, Las Piñas. Roselle Guiraldo and Jose Masqueriola after they attend mass in Las Piñas when they are about to leave the church, Joey or Jose Masqueriola was hit with the pillbox that was thrown by the accused, Marlon Ortillas. The incident happened in Plaza Quezon. Ortillas throw the pillbox in the head of Maqueriola. The pillbox was intended to Roselle Guilardo because the accused has the strongest motive of killing him. Because three days after the opening of classes at the Las Piñas Municipal High School, Roselle Guiraldo and the accused could not see eye to eye already because Roselle Guiraldo was stoned and the stone came from the direction of the accused while seated inside the classroom.
Court Decision : The judgement is reversed and set aside. Another judgment is entered Acquitting appellant Marlon Ortillas y Gamlanga for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered Immediately Released from prison, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
Orolfo, Sandry Mikko H.
ReplyDelete1LM3
G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.
Facts:
On May 22,1988 Chin Ming Tsoi married Gina Lao-Tsoi. After the celebration they went to the defendant’s mother and stayed on the same room and bed on the first night of their married life but Chi Ming Tsoi turned his back and slept. There were no sexual intercourse so they went to Baguio as effort to honeymoon but then Chi Ming Tsoi invited their relatives and avoided by sleeping on rocking chair and going on long walk. They are sleeping on same room and bed but during May 22,1988 until March 15,1989 they had no sexual intercourse. They submitted themselves for medical examination to an urologist at Chinese General Hospital. The result was Gina Lao-Tsoi was normal, healthy and still a virgin while Chi Ming Tsoi kept the result confidential. Gina Lao-Tsoi alleged Chi Ming Tsoi that he married her for residency status. Gina Lao-Tsoi doesn’t want to reconcile. Gina Lao-Tsoi also wanted their marriage annulled under psychological incapacity. Chi Ming Tsoi then submitted himself to another examination. The result was that he is capable of erection and that there is no impotency.
Issue:
Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi was psychologically incapable, physically capable or both
Court Decision:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that they will be annulled. In view of the foregoing premises, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1994 is hereby affirmed in all respects and the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOrolfo, Sandry Mikko H.
ReplyDelete1LM3
G.R. No. 145176. March 30, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SANTIAGO PERALTA y POLIDARIO (at large), ARMANDO DATUIN JR. y GRANADOS (at large), ULYSSES GARCIA y TUPAS, MIGUELITO DE LEON y LUCIANO, LIBRANDO FLORES y CRUZ AND ANTONIO LOYOLA y SALISI, accused, ULYSSES GARCIA Y TUPAS, MIGUELITO DE LEON y LUCIANO, LIBRANDO FLORES y CRUZ AND ANTONIO LOYOLA y SALISI, appellants.
Facts:
All of the accused above were all convicted for theft for stealing the punctured BSP notes amounting Php 194,190. On the basis of complaint filed by Mr. Pedro Labita, Ulysses Garcia was apprehended in Las Piñas City while waiting on a bus on the way to BSP. Garcia was forced to get in the car, he was blindfolded and his hands were handcuffed. The police officer forced Garcia to cooperate by interrogating him and sooner, admitted the crime, and named some of his accomplices. The police officers invited the other accused subject for questioning.
On the other hand, Ulysses Garcia claims that he was arrested without warrant of arrest and was tortured by the officers who apprehended him to admit the crime. But then the trial court still convicted the accused on the basis of his confessions and the three perforated notes confiscated from Garcia at the time of his arrest.
Issues:
Whether the arrest without warrant of arrest was lawful?
Whether the search and seizure were lawful?
Whether the evidence and the confession were admissible?
Court Decision:
The decision was reversed and set aside. Appellants were hereby acquitted and ordered immediately released, not unless they are being detained for any other lawful cause.
Libron, Martin Jeus
ReplyDelete[A.M. No. OCA IPI-98-516-P.December 13, 2000]
JACINTO vs. SERRANO
A.M. No. OCA IPI-98-5 16-P (Evangeline G. Jacinto vs. Romancito M. Serrano, Clerk of Court I, MTC, Branch 2, San Fernando, Pampanga.)
Facts:
-According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Gloria R. Dimarucut worked eight hours a day for five days a week when she was in fact enrolled during that period in a secretarial course at the East Central Colleges at San Fernando, Pampanga
-May 21, 1998, respondent alleged that complainant filed the instant complaint in retaliation for the memorandum he had issued asking her to explain why she should not be administratively disciplined for habitual absenteeism and tardiness.
-Dimarucut had already been enrolled in a steno-typing course at East Central Colleges in San Fernando, Pampanga; that Gloria R. Dimarucut had asked his permission for her to continue her studies considering that she had already paid her matriculation fees and that the knowledge and skill she would acquire would help her in her work; that he agreed on the condition that she would make arrangements with her instructors that instead of attending classes on weekdays, she would do so on Saturdays; and that to the best of his knowledge, Gloria R. Dimarucut was never absent during her turn in taking down notes at the hearings of cases and that she never failed to submit her transcript of stenographic notes on time.
-Gloria R. Dimarucut stated in her position paper, dated October 13, 2000, that she had never absented herself from work as her teachers at the East Central Colleges had allowed her to come late for her classes after office hours and to do make up work during Saturdays.
Issues: If the Accusation of the complainant is Admissible
Resolution: WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Romancito M. Serrano, Clerk of Court I of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch II, San Fernando, Pampanga is DISMISSED for failure of complainant Evangeline G. Jacinto, Court Stenographer I of the same court, to prove the same. Complainant Evangeline G. Jacinto is ADMONISHED to refrain from filing administrative complaints which she knows to be groundless and WARNED that repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.