LR Case Digest #4.docx

8/14/2019 LR Case Digest #4.docx

1/8

Vasquez, Michelle G. Date Submitted: August 14, 2012

People vs. Oanis

PETITIONER: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENT: ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA

G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943

MORAN, J.(p)

FACTS

Chief of Police, Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest one

Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.

Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back

towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable

inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson and not the wanted

criminal. The corpse was thereafter brought to the provincial hospital and upon autopsy by Dr. Ricardo

de Castro, multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by a .32 and a .45 caliber revolvers were found on Tecson's

body which caused his death.

Charged with the crime of murder of one Serapio Tecson, the accused Antonio Z. Oanis and

Alberto Galanta, chief of police of Cabanatuan and corporal of the Philippine Constabulary, respectively,

were, after due trial, found guilty by the lower court of homicide through reckless imprudence and were

sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of from one year and six months to two years and two

months ofprison correccional and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the

amount of P1,000. Defendants appealed separately from this judgment.

ISSUE

Whether or not Oanis and Galanta may upon the facts presented above be held criminally liable

for the death caused to Tecson

RULING

Judgment of the court of origin modified. Defendants were declared guilty of murder with the

mitigating circumstance of the act of performing their duty, 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 as indemnity of P2,000, with costs.


2/8


3/8

.

The three accused were separately arraigned, and after they all entered a plea of not guilty, trial

ensued.

The Trial Court found Mosende guilty as a principal of the crime of murder, qualified by

treachery, defined and penalized under Art. 248, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code of Carlo Alipao, on the

basis of circumstantial evidence, refusing to believe his alibi.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused, Mosende is guilty of the crime of murder

RULING

YES. The law is that circumstantial evidence will support and justify a verdict of conviction if

there be more than one circumstance, if the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and

the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable

doubt.These requisites are adequately met in this case at bar. There are several circumstances

generating certitude of Mosende's guilt, these being:

1) it was in the shack of the family of Rudy Mosende that the corpse of Lelot Alipao bound hand and foot, head and upper body encased in a sack, dead from severe

blows to the head from a blunt instrument was dug up from a shallow hole in the

dirt floor;

2) the body had been buried in that place by Benceslao Resullar, Jr. and Fidelino Balagasome seven months earlier;

3) it was on the invitation and request of Rudy Mosende that Benceslao and Fidelinohad gone to that shack and dug the hole themselves;

4) it was Rudy Mosende who showed them the cadaver of Lelot Alipao, lying in thetoilet; and it was Rudy who told them to carry it to the hole and bury it there, and

who bullied them into doing so when they initially demurred;

5) Mosende told them it was Lelot Alipao they were interring;6) Mosende threatened to kill Benceslao and Fidelino and their parents if anyone

should come to know of the evening's bizarre event; and because of their fear, the

two exiled themselves in Surigao City, returning to Mainit only after they learned of

Mosende's arrest;

7) when Lelot left his home for the last time, with two friends, it was allegedly to visitRudy Mosende.


4/8


People vs. Martin

PETITIONER: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENT: ANICETO MARTIN

G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951

JUGO, J.(p)

FACTS

Aniceto Martin was accused of the complex crime of parricide with abortion before the Court of

First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After trial he was acquitted of abortion, but found guilty of parricide and

was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the penalty of

deceased in the sum of P2,000, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs. He

appealed.

The defendant, twenty-eight years old, a farmer, was living in the barrio No. 12 of the

municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. He courted the girl Laura Liz of the same barrio for several months

and was accepted. They had sexual intercourse before marriage and she became pregnant. In an

advanced stage of pregnancy, she came to live with the family of the family of the defendant and

demanded marriage, which was duly solemnized on June 7, 1948, and they continued to live as husband

and wife.

Between four and five o' clock in the morning of August 1, 1948, the corpse of Laura was found

inside the family toilet, which was at a certain distance from their home, with a maguey rope, six meters

long and one centimeter in diameter, around her neck, leaving a circular mark around it with the

exception of the nape which was unmarked undoubtedly due to her long and thick hair covering it. The

corpse was first seen by Anselma Martin, sister of the accused, who was living in the same house, andSaturnino Tumaneng, brother-in-law of Laura, who happened to be passing by. The defendant was

absent from home.

ISSUE

Whether or not Martin is guilty of the crime of parricide

RULING

YES.

In the case at bar, the trial court considered two mitigating circumstances in favor of the

defendant: (1) that of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased without any sufficient

provocation on the part of the defendant which in this case is equivalent to incomplete self-defense

on the part of the defendant, he should not have wound it around her neck and tightened it and (2)

the lack of instruction, without any aggravating circumstances to offset them, the penalty next lower in

the degree should be imposed, which is that of reclusion temporal. Judgment MODIFIED.


5/8


People vs. Quianzon

PETITIONER: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

RESPONDENT: JUAN QUIANZON,defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. 42607 September 28, 1935

RECTO, J. (p)

FACTS

On February 1, 1934, a novena for the suffrage of the soul of the deceased person was being

held in the house of Victoria Cacpal in a barrio, near thepoblacion,of the municipality of Paoay, Ilocos

Norte, with the usual attendance of the relatives and friends. The incident that led to the filling of these

charges took place between 3 to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Andres Aribuabo, one of the persons

present, went to ask for food of Juan Quianzon, then in the kitchen, who, to all appearances, had the

victuals in his care. It was the second or third time that Aribuabo approached Quianzon with the same

purpose whereupon the latter, greatly peeved, took hold of a firebrand and applied ran to the place

where the people were gathered exclaiming that he is wounded and was dying. Raising his shirt, he

showed to those present a wound in his abdomen below the navel. Aribuabo died as a result of this

wound on the tenth day after the incident.

Juan Quianzon was charged with and convicted of the crime of homicide in the Court of First

Instance of Ilocos Norte, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six years and one day

ofprision mayor, as minimum to fourteen years, seven months and one day of reclusion temporal, as

maximum.

It is contended by the defense that even granting that it was the accused who inflicted the

wound which resulted in Aribuabo's death, he should not be convicted of homicide but only of seriousphysical injuries because said wound was not necessarily fatal and the deceased would have survived it

had he not twice removed the drainage which Dr. Mendoza had placed to control or isolate the

infection.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused is criminally liable for the death of the Arubuabo

RULING

YES.

According to the Court, the contention made by the defense is without merit. According to the

physician who examined whether he could survive or not." It was a wound in the abdomen which

occasionally results in traumatic peritonitis. The infection was cause by the fecal matter from the large

intestine which has been perforated. The possibility, admitted by said physician that the patient might

have survived said wound had he not removed the drainage, does not mean that the act of the patient

was the real cause of his death. Even without said act the fatal consequence could have followed, and


6/8

the fact that the patient had so acted in a paroxysm of pain does not alter the juridical consequences of

the punishable act of the accused.

However, the Court also stated that assuming that it should disregard Simeon Cacpal's

testimony (identifying Quianzon as the one who inflicted the wound), there is no evidence of record that

the crime charged was committed by means of the knife, Exhibit A, and only have the extrajudicial

admission of the accused that he had committed it by means of a bamboo spit with which the wound of

the deceased might have been caused because, according to the physician who testified in this case, it

was produced by a "sharp and penetrating" instrument.

Hence, judgment was modified with the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction and of

intention to commit so grave a wrong as the committed, taken into consideration in favor of the

appellant, without any aggravating circumstances adverse to him. In this view, the accused was

sentenced to an indeterminate penalty with a minimum of four years ofprision correccional and a

maximum of a eight years ofprision mayor, affirming it in all other respect, with cost to said appellant.


7/8


People vs. Marasigan

PETITIONER: THE UNITED STATES

RESPONDENT: FILOMENO MARASIGAN

G.R. No. L-9426, August 15, 1914

MORELAND,J.(p)

FACTS

In this case it appears that about 4 oclock of the afternoon of the 23d of January, 1913,

Francisco Mendoza, while engaged in examining his sugar crop growing upon his lands in the barrio of

Irucan, now called Calayan, in the municipality of Taal, Batangas Province, was asked by the accused and

his wife to approach them. The two had an argument and while doing so, the accused struck at

Mendoza.

On attempting to ward off the blow Mendoza was cut in the left hand. The accused continued

the attack, whereupon Mendoza seized the accused by the neck and the body and threw him down.

While both were lying upon the ground the accused still sought to strike Mendoza with his dagger. The

latter seized the hand which held the dagger and attempted to loosen his hold upon it. While they were

thus fighting for the possession of the knife, the wife of the accused came forward and took the dagger

from her husbands hand, throwing it to one side. She then seized who after various maneuvers, struck

Mendoza a blow which knocked him senseless.

As a result of the fight Mendoza received three wounds, two in the chest and one in the left

hand, the latter being the most serious, the extensor tendor in one of the seven days at a cost of about

P45, but the middle finger of the left hand was rendered useless.

The accused asserts that he should have a new trial upon the ground that if he should be given

another opportunity to present evidence he would be able to show by a physician, Gregorio Limjoco,

that the finger which the court found to have been rendered useless by the cut already described was

not necessarily a useless member, inasmuch as, if the accused would permit a surgical operation, the

finger could be restored to its normal condition. He also asserts that he could demonstrate by the

physician referred to that it was not the middle finger that was disabled but the third finger instead.

ISSUES

(1) Whether or not a motion for a new trial due to reasons stated by the defendant should begranted

(2) Whether or not the defendant is guilty of assaultRULING

(1) NO. The Court did not regard the case made as sufficient to warrant a new trial. It held thatit is immaterial for the purposes of this case whether the finger, the usefulness of which was

destroyed, was the middle finger or the third finger. All agree that one of the fingers of the


8/8

left hand was rendered useless by the act of the accused. It does not matter which finger it

was.

(2) YES. The Court held that it does not attach any importance to the contention that theoriginal condition of the finger could be restored by a surgical operation to relieve the

accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime. It was his voluntary act which

disabled Mendoza and he must abide by the consequences resulting therefrom without aid

from Mendoza. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Documents

LR Case Digest #4.docx