People vs praxedes AYAYA GR- L-29396 (umbrella) (umb rella) Jose Fajardo(chief of police) went to t he house of Benito de la Cruz(deceased)(because of a complaint of some drunk guy vomiting) only to find the latter wounded on the left upper eyelid which was bleeding. He was brought to the hospital where he died 4 days later. The cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage due to the wound inflicted. Ayaya then was tr ied and charged for the death of his husband. AYAYA’S DEFENSE: On appeal, Ayaya defense states She, Be nito, and her son Emilio drank tuba and
went to the cinema. No quarrels occurred on that night or even before the incident. But on their way home, Benito gave a blow without w arning to ayaya which she dodged. Benito then went home be fore them. When Ayaya and Emilio arrived at their house, Benito was preventing the door from being opened. The door slightly gave an opening and Emilio succeeded in putting his head bet ween the wall and door, however, the door was crushing Emilio’s head and when Benito poked his head on the door, Ayaya jabbed him with his umbrella. When they gained access to the door, they found Benito already lying in bed with a wound on his head. The testimony was supported by her son. Ayaya’s action in thrusting her umbrella was did so to free her son from i mminent danger of being crushed in the head, the absence of any reasonable motive to her husband made the court believe that it was a mere accident without any fault or intention of causing it. it . She incurred no criminal liability because it was a licit act to free her son from the grave danger of danger of crushing his head. Ayaya is acquitted.
Virgilio TALAMPAS
(convicted of homicide by CA) vs people
–
Jose Sevillo(witness) was with Eduardo and Ernesto Matic in front of his house repairing his tricycle. Talampas riding a bicycle stopped by 3 meters away, walked a few steps, poked an shot Eduardo. The latter took refuge behind Ernesto. When Talampas shot again 3x times, it hit Ernesto at the right portion of his back, while Jose was hit on his nape. They were brought to the hospital. DEFENSO OF TALAMPAS: Interposed self-defense and accident. Eduardo hit him with a wrench, but he was able to parry it. He then struggled to get the gun of Eduardo which accidentally fired and hit Ernesto. It also hit on Eduardo’s leg. When he was able to seize the gun, he then shot Eduardo in the head and ran away. No self-defense since it was Talampas who initiated the attack, and Eduardo and Ernesto did not commit any unlawful aggression against Talampas.
Not an accident, an accident pre supposes lack of intention to do wrong but Talampas acted on the contrary by brandishing and poking his gun. It is not a lawful act being a criminal assault. Talampas’ poor aim that resulted in mistake in blow does not excuse him of liability to Ernesto.
AFFIRMED.
People vs Susan LATOSA Major Felixberto Latosa(deceased), appellant, and two of their children named Sassymae and Michael were at their house in Fort Bonifacio. Deceased was asleep when S assymae saw her mother took his father’s gun in the cabinet. Appellant then ordered Sassymae to buy ice cream. She also ordered
Michael to follow her sister, but the latter refused(hungry). And so Appellant ordered him to buy food instead in the grocery(bought ice cream instead). When Michael went back and finishing his icecandy at the barracks beyond their house, he saw his playmate Macmac telling him that her mother was running outside their house but Michael just ignored it. Sgt. Ramos then arrived inquiring whether something happened. Michael denied, but when he went inside their house, he saw his Father shot on the left side of his head holding a gun on his left hand. Appellant testified on her own behalf that decease d asked her to get his service pistol and as she was handing the pistol to him, it fired hitting Felixberto. She then reported the shooting incident to the Provost Marshall Office. Appellant denied testimonies of her children of having seen her took the gun, and the testimony of having an affair with another Policeman named Sta. Inez. RTC held the claim of accident inconsistent with the evidence due to the location of the wound, her actions before the shooting incident, motive. Also, the fact that she made it appear suicide when she placed the gun on his left hand not taking into account that her husband was right handed. Also it is inconceivable that her children would testify against her if it were not for injustice against their father. CA further held that a revolver is not prone to accidental firing as pressure is needed in the trigger, and when handing a gun the muzzle is not pointed in the person, and assuming that she did so, she failed to explain why the gun would accidentally fire. Held: Appellant was guilty since the accidental shot is not credible. Further, the manner of carrying the pistol negates her claim of “due care” in the performance of an act. Other circumstantial evidences: Sassymae Latosa [testified] that she heard Col. Sta. Inez [tell] her mother, …"bakit mo inamin. Sana pinahawak mo kay Major iyong baril saka mo pinutok. ” The children testified that they were informed by the victim regarding the threat of Sta. Inez to the whole family who alleged[ly] has an amorous relationship with their mother. Francisco Latosa presented a memorandum that accused was terminated from her teaching job by reason of immorality. It was only the accused and the victim who were left alone in the house APPEAL is Dismissed. CONVICTED O F PARRICIDE.
People vs SARIP It was evening when Ernesto Sarip, Manuel Raop, Condalla Sarip, and Makadatar Tayao Mabpan were in the vicinity of the house of the spouses Cirlaco Mision and Pamposa Mision. Raop, Sarip and Makadatar had firearms. Ernesto atnd Makadatar took chickens and cows which t hey pass on to Rapo and Sarip. The former 2 further asked for money and rice. Cirlaco said t hat they didn’t have any, which angered the intruders leading them to fire at the inmates of the house. Pamposa and his daughter was hit while Cirlaco was hacked on the ground as he was l ying on the floor. Two more inmates were found dead. Defendant Raop on his defense, contends that he acted in under duress. Ernesto wanted him to accompany him on the robbery. At First Rapos refused but due to threats by Ernesto, he consented. He was given a gun and on their way t he encountered Condalla Sarip who was forced to join t hem too. According to Raop, Condalla refused but Ernesto poked his gun at him. Ernesto on his part confessed that he was in conspiracy with Raop and that he was only induced by the barangay captain Dumato Mabpan. However, it was not sustained. Ernesto was the mastermind and was a co-conspirator. He was the one primarily liable for he pleaded guilt yet failed to prove any attenuating circumstances. With respect to Raop, he did not acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. His pretension that he was threatened with a gun by his friends, Ernesto, is not credible because he himself Raop was armed with a rifle.(paliuntod- a homemade gun) Since Makadatar, Ernesto Sarip and Raop were conspirators, Raop is equally liable for the assaults committed by Makadatar and Ernesto.
People vs LORENO- Robbery with Double rape Camarines Sur Barangay Captain Elias Monge was at his house with his two young daughters
Monica(14yrs) and Cristina(22yrs) preparing to attend About 7:40 in the evening farm helper Francisco Fable saw the 4 o ffenders holding a flashlight from a far saying that they had a message for Elias that came from the chief. The 3 men in the black sweater were invited inside the house while the one in re d stayed outsied, Elias and Monica read the letter “Kami mga NPA”. They were held in the sala. Fable was also pushed towards the sala where he recognized the one
on the read sweater was Eustaquio Loreno. Loreno was instructed to tie the hands of the Monges and to drive the barking dog away. He brought Fable to do the job but on the process, Fable was able to identify one of the offender as Jimmy Marantal. After they went back to the sala, a man in a dark sweater brought Monica to a room upstairs asking for her piggy bank savings, and raped her. The same happened to Cristina. Loreno also got himself involve in sexually touching Cristina in her private parts. He also further held Beata Monge to open the door of aparadors to get the contents and pour it over the sala. They w ere robbed in the total of P10,305 .00. Soon thereafter, a man in the name of Sixto Agapito was coming which made the offenders left the place while threatening them not to tell anybody. Elias reported the following day. Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal claimed that they acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. They admitted that they were in the house of Elias Monge and that they wer e only forced by members of the NPA who threatens that their family would be killed if not for their cooperation. The court held the contention untenantable “The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of Appellee's Brief. death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of Such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat” Loreno’s participation is evident as he was armed with a short firearm, and when Monica Monge was
struggling and shouting for help from inside the room where she was earlier dragged by the man in dark sweater, Loreno's immediate reaction was to point his gun to the victims who were then lying on the floor, telling them not to rise if they wanted to live. His action with Beata Monge in stealing the contents of the aparadors and his kissing and touching of Cristina private parts also signifies wilfull participation. The facts clearly showed their community of interest and concert of criminal design with their unidentified companions which constituted conspiracy without the need of direct proof of the conspiracy itself
