crim law 3rd set

8/8/2019 Crim Law 3rd Set

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-law-3rd-set 1/6

People of the Philippines v. Zaldy Garcia

Facts:

The RTC convicted Zaldy Garcia of the crime of murder guilty beyond reasonable

doubt qualified by treachery and with the attendant of special aggravating circumstance

of the use of unlicensed firearm which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On September 8,1999 at around 8:00 in the morning, SPO4 Orina and Major Opinaproceeded to Barangay Pugo, Bauang La Union to arrest Zaldy Garcia. Major Opina

upon seeing Zaldy Garcia told the latter to surrender himself and they already have a

warrant of arrest. Zaldy just waived his hands as if he refuses and went inside the house.

At that instance, they asked for a back-up and discussed the strategy to arrest the

accused while waiting for the wife to open the gate .After 15-20 minutes, three

policemen arrived. They already positioned themselves outside the compound, suddenly

while Major Opina was approaching the door, he was shot and hit on his abdomen and

fell down.Then, the accused handed his firearm and surrendered to Major Lusad.

Issue:

Whether or not Zaldy Garcia is liable for the crime of murder

Ruling:

Yes, the court held that the crime committed by the appellant is murder qualified

by treachery penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion

perpetua to death. The proven use of unlicensed firearm adds an aggravating

circumstance to the crime pursuant to Republic Act No.8294 and its established

jurisprudence.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any person who not falling

within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall

be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following

circumstances:

a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means of

persons to insure or afford impunity

b. In consideration of a price, reward or promise

c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a

vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means

of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great

waste and ruin

d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding

paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive

cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity



e. With evident premeditation

f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of

the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Elements of murder

1. That a person was killed

2. That the accused killed him

3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned

in Article 248.

4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide

In the instant case, it is not disputed that the appellant went out of his house to

see the two men who came. Second by his own testimony, he returned to hishouse to get his gun. Third, no immediate shooting took place. The two policemen

still called for back-up and while waiting discussed for the strategy to arrest the

accused and only after the back up came did they climb the fence. Fourth, Najor

Opina was almost at the door when the shot that killed him rang out. Fifth, the shot

came from inside the house through a closed chicken wire screen door that

effectively hid the man from the outside. And lastly, the fatal shot was sudden

immediately hitting Major Opina. Indeed the shooting of Major Opina was attended

by treachery.



People of the Philippines v. Primo Campuhan

Facts:

On April 25, 1996 at around 4:00 pm, Ma. Corazon Pamintuan went down from the

2nd floor of their house to prepare milo chocolate drinks for their children. At the ground

floor, she met Primo Campuhan who was then busy filling small plastic bags with water

to be frozen into ice in the freezer. As Corazon was busy preparing, she heard the shout

of her daughter and run upstairs to check on her children. Then, she saw the accused

kneeling before her daughter. Primo was forcing his penis into her daughter’s vagina.

In his defense ,he asserted that the charge was a mere scheme of Crystel’s

mother who allegedly harbored ill will against him since he refused to run an errand for

her. He contends that Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his back

when she suddenly pulled him down causing them to fall down on the floor.

The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the

extreme penalty of death and ordered him to indemnify the victim 50,000 moral

damages, 25,000 for exemplary damages and the costs of the suit.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is liable for the crime of attempted rape

Ruling:

Yes, Under Article 6 in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is

attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts,

and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape

by reason of some cause or accident rather than his own spontaneous desistance. All the

elements of attempted rape- and only of attempted rape is present in this case., hencethe accused should be punished only for attempted rape.

In rape cases, where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both

should complement each other; otherwise to rely on the testimonial evidence alone, in

utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate, would be productive

of unwarranted or even mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully ascertain

whether or not the penis of the accused entered the labial threshold of the female organ

to determine is it is consummated or attempted rape.



People of the Philippines v. Cresenciano Maramara

Facts:

On November 18,1991 in the evening, at Barangay Calpi, Municipality of Claveria,

Province of Masbate, Cresenciano Maramara with intent to kill, evident premeditation,

treachery and taking advantage of nighttime wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,

assault and shoot with a handgun one Miguelito Donato hitting the latter on the chestthereby inflicting wound which caused his death.

The RTC found Cresenciano Maramara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime

or murder

Issue:

Whether or not there is rumble/free for all in the instant case

Ruling:

There is no merit in appellant’s contention that he should only be held liable for

death caused in tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code. It was in

such situation that he came at the scene and joined the fray purportedly to pacify the

protagonists when Miguelito attacked him causing four stab wounds in the different parts

of his body. Then accused appellant with his handgun shot Miguelito.

Assuming that a rumble/ free for all fight occurred that night, Artice 251 of the

Revised Penal Code cannot apply because there was positive identification on who killed

the victim.



[G. R. No. 170723, March 03, 2008]

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, Petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHELINA S.

AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JUVIDO AGATEP and DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, Respondents.

FACTS:

On June 11,2002 petitioner Gloria Aguirre instituted a criminal complaint for the violation of Revised Penal Codeparticularly Articles 172 and 262, both in relation to Republic Act No.7610 against respondents Pedro Aguirre, Olondriz,Dr. Agatep, Dr. Pascual and several John/Jane Doe alleging that John/Jane Doe upon the apparent instructions of respondents Michelina Aguirre-Olondriz and Pedro Aguirre actually scouted, prospected, facilitated solicited and/or procured the medical services of respondents Dr. Pascual and Dr. Agatep on the intended mutilation via bilateralvasectomy of Laureano Aguirre.

Olondriz denied that the prospected, scouted, facilitated, solicited and/or procured any false statement mutilatedor abused his common law brother, Laureano Aguirre. She further contends that his common law brother went through avasectomy procedure but that does not amount to mutilation.

Dr. Agatep contends that the complainant has no legal personality to file a case since she is only a common lawsister of Larry who has a legal guardian in the person of Pedro Aguirre. He further contends that Vasectomy does not inany way equate to castration and what is touched in vasectomy is not considered an organ in the context of law andmedicine.

The Assistant City Prosecutor held that the facts alleged did not amount to mutilation, the vasectomy operationdid not deprived Larry of his reproductive organ.

Gloria Aguirre then appealed to the Secretary of the DOJ but Chief State Prosecutor dismissed the petition statingthat the Secretary of Justice may motu propio dismiss outright the petition if there is no showing of any reversible error inthe questioned resolution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents are liable for the crime of mutilation

RULING:

No, the court held that Article 262 of the Revised Penal Code provides that

Art. 262. Mutilation. â€“ The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon anyperson who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.

Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.A straightforward scrutiny of the above provision shows that the elements [55] of mutilation under the first paragraph of Art.

262 of the Revised Penal Code to be 1) that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation;

and 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential

organ for reproduction.



According to the public prosecutor, the facts alleged did not amount to the crime of mutilation as defined and

penalized above, i.e., â€œ[t]he vasectomy operation did not in any way deprived (sic) Larry of his reproductive organ,

which is still very much part of his physical self.

crim law 3rd set

Documents