criminal law set 7 11-20

7/24/2019 Criminal Law Set 7 11-20

1/5

PEOPLE vs. PAREJA et al

Facts:

Victims family was roused from sleep by shouts of "Gising kayo, huwag sumigaw!" Three maskeintruders had gained entry into the house. Amada saw one of them asking Sabina for the betamaxmelita shouted for help. The culprits were unmasked. Accused tried but failed to asport a TV set anbetamax machine and instead ended up killing eneroso.

#$%Aggra&ating circumstance of nighttime was not pro&en. 'or nocturnity to be considered as such( it musha&e been particularly sought by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime.There is aggra&ating circumstance of dwelling. Although dwelling is considered as inherent in crimewhich can only be committed in the abode of the &ictim( such as trespass to dwelling and robbery thereoin an inhabited house( it has been held as aggra&ating in robbery with homicide because the auhothereof could ha&e accomplished the heinous deed of snuffing out the &ictims life without ha&ing t&iolate his domicile

PEOPLE vs. Cabresos,Facts:)o*ue +abresos raped ditha ,esidas. The crime was committed with the attendance of aggra&atincircumstance of abuse of confidence and ob&ious ungratefulness as accused was accommodated to li&with the complainant-s family. She personally knows the accused )o*ue +abresos whom she consideras her uncle because he is a cousin of her mother. er mother and father were in Talisayan $istricospital. She was left in the house together with her brother and sister( who are / and 0 years olrespecti&ely. +abresos who pointed a sharp pointed knife to her neck( s*uee1ed her mouth and boxeher abdomen that she lost her strength.

#$%Although we affirm the findings of the lower court with regard to the guilt of the accused and itappreciation of the aggra&ating circumstances of use of a deadly weapon( 36abuse of confidence an

ob&ious ungratefulness( 37 we must take exception to its appreciation of blood relationship as aaggra&ating circumstance in this case. 2e ha&e held in earlier cases 38 that the relationship betweeuncle and niece is not co&ered by any of the relationships mentioned in Article 3 of the )e&ised ,ena+ode.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE vs. !REFIEL'acts%4arcela Torlao( her husband and their four children were sound asleep in their house. They werawakened by the sound of their front door breaking. refiel suddenly entered in their bedroom anbeamed flashlight on their faces aandd threatened them. Accused brought the &ictim in a school anraped her despite pleading not because she was fou5month pregnant. Accused was harged wit

abduction with rape aggra&ated with nighttime and craft. e admitted such but claimed that they hasexual liaisons by mutual consent for the past 6 months

eld%

7y his admission that he forcibly abducted the &ictim which( by the way( was independently establisheby the e&idence for the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt( accused5appellant un*ualifiedly affirmthe existence of the elements of the crime of forcible abduction under Article 68/ of the )e&ised ,ena+ode( namely% the taking of a woman against her will and with lewd designs. 9ndeed( the taking wa

1


2/5

against complainant-s will because she was dragged out of her house by means of force and intimidationThe abduction was not for any lawful or noble purpose: as he now frankly admits( it was with lewdesigns.Although not alleged in the 9nformation( the generic aggra&ating circumstance of dwellingshould ha&also been appreciated against the accused5appellant considering that it was fully established without anob;ection on the part of the defense. This +ourt has held that in the crimes of abduction "3and illegadetention""where the offended party is taken from his house( dwelling may be taken into account as aaggra&ating circumstance.

PEOPLE vs CA#AN!CALA'acts%+abangcala brothers planned to kill the &ictim because 4ario had a *uarrel with the &ictims son. 7ennapproached the &ictim and struck him twice with the bamboo hitting the latter on the left cheek and thneck. The &ictim fell( after which $anny and )ene ;oined 7enny in mauling the &ictim. The &ictimpleaded for his life saying ",lease ha&e mercy on me. $on-t kill me" 7ut the mauling continued. At onpoint $anny uttered "


3/5

Treachery being present( it was then error for the trial court to consider the generic aggra&atincircumstance of abuse of superior strength as an independent aggra&ating circumstance. 9t is settled thatreachery absorbs abuse of superior strength.

PEOPLE vs. $EALIA'acts%mmanuel $esalisa( a //5yr old farmer( li&ed wB his C5yrold legal wife(


4/5

)oy #ibby( armed with rifles( ha&ing been detailed by those commanding the defense of the town( on thafternoon of the day referred to( ad&anced to the cemetery within the limits of the town( forming aoutpost for the purpose of awaiting the coming of the mutineers: that about 8.3 o-clock they sighted thmutineers: that immediately thereafter they heard a shot( followed by others( which came from near thcemetery( where the mutineers had halted and dismounted: that after a few shots had been exchange)oy #ibby was struck with a ball and killed: that the outpost retreated to the con&ent and took refugtherein: that the mutineers ad&anced against the town( attacking it at &arious points and especially thcon&ent( where a portion of the residents of the town had gathered( including the women and children

or the purpose of defending themsel&es: that no other person except )oy #ibby was killed( althougse&eral others were more or less se&erely wounded.

HEL$:'acts examined and held sufficient to sustain a con&iction for the crime of murder. 9n order thapremeditaciIn conocida may exist( it is not necessary that the accused premeditate the killing of particular indi&idual. A general attack with deadly weapons upon a gi&en &illage ha&ing beepremeditated and planned( the killing of any indi&idual during the excitement of that attack is murder.The nature and characteristics of the aggra&ating circumstances defined in paragraphs C to E( inclusi&of the findings( discussed and presented( and such circumstances found not present under the facts.

PEOPLE vs. &(#RERO et. al

'acts%Angelina =rbi )agsac( daughter of the &ictim Alfonso =rbi was at home in Sta. Teresa when se&erarmed men came( two >/? of whom shot her father under the house( accused Alfredo +ostales and $ann+ostales. $anny followed her father when he ran outside the house but the companions of Alfred+ostales followed and killed him. She( her father and mother and her children were then eating on thground floor of their house when the armed men arri&ed. er father stood up when $anny +ostaleasked for water to drink. er father went to the door to see him and his companions. 9t was there wher$anny +ostales shot him.

#$%Jualifying circumstance of treachery is present in the case at bar. There is treachery when the offendecommits any of the crimes against the person( employing means( methods( or forms in the executiothereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution( without risk to himself arising from thdefense which the offended party might make. The shooting of Alfonso =rbi was sudden anunexpected. The &ictim was unarmed( unable to defend himself. e was an unsuspecting &ictim as thassailants ;ust asked for a drink of water. e was totally unprepared to be able to defend himself.@n the other hand( e&ident premeditation was not clearly established( contrary to the findings of thtrial court. Although conspiracy existed( it was merely inferred from the acts of the accused in thperpetration of the crime( the re*uisites necessary to appreciate e&ident premeditation ha&e not beemet in this case.

4


5/5

PEOPLE vs. LA!ARTOFacts:

9n the early e&ening of 4ay /3( DC6( )eynaldo Aducal( who was buying fish in the public marke,oblacion #aoang(

criminal law set 7 11-20

Documents