Scribd
Upload
58 views3 pages

16,17,18

The court modified the crime from murder to homicide based on lack of evidence to prove qualifying circumstances like treachery. While the victims were seized, there was no evidence they remained defenseless when attacked. The court found appellants guilty of homicide only. In another case, the court reversed a murder conviction and found the appellant guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution by disregarding traffic signs and speeding in a school zone. Proving reckless imprudence requires showing a voluntary but unintentional act from which damage results due to lack of precaution. A third case also found the appellant guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for throwing a

Uploaded by

MG Dangtayan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views3 pages

16,17,18

The court modified the crime from murder to homicide based on lack of evidence to prove qualifying circumstances like treachery. While the victims were seized, there was no evidence they remained defenseless when attacked. The court found appellants guilty of homicide only. In another case, the court reversed a murder conviction and found the appellant guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution by disregarding traffic signs and speeding in a school zone. Proving reckless imprudence requires showing a voluntary but unintentional act from which damage results due to lack of precaution. A third case also found the appellant guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for throwing a

Uploaded by

MG Dangtayan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

16.) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM,


MANUEL DELIM alias BONG (At Large), ROBERT DELIM (At Large), and RONALD DELIM
alias BONG, accused-appellants.

HELD:
1) The crime charged is murder.
If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the victim, the incidental deprivation
of the victim's liberty does not constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a preparatory act
to the killing, and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the killing of the victim. The crime
committed would either be homicide or murder. Specific intent must be alleged in the
Information and proved by the state in a prosecution for a crime requiring specific intent.
Kidnapping and murder are specific intent crimes.In murder, the specific intent is to kill the
victim. In kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the victim of his/her liberty. If there is no
motive for the crime, the accused cannot be convicted for kidnappingIn this case, it is evident on
the face of the Information that the specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the house of
Modesto was to kill him and that he was seized precisely to kill him with the attendant modifying
circumstances. The act of the malefactors of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their
primary purpose of killing him thus, the crime charged in the Information is Murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article 268 thereof.

2) NO qualifying circumstances should not be considered . Qualifying circumstances such as


treachery and abuse of superior strength must be alleged and proved clearly and conclusively
as the crime itself. Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

In this case, the victim was defenseless when seized by Marlon and Ronald. However, the
prosecution failed to present any witness or conclusive evidence that Modesto was defenseless
immediately before and when he was attacked and killed. It cannot be presumed that although
he was defenseless when he was seized the victim was in the same situation when he was
attacked, shot and stabbed by the malefactors. As to superior strength, what is primordial is that
the assailants deliberately took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate
the crime. In this case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Marlon and Ronald
deliberately took advantage of their numerical superiority when Modesto was killed. The
aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm and dwelling was not alleged in the information
thus, cannot be considered. In sum, Marlon, Ronald and Leon are guilty only of Homicide.
Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of homicide (the decision of the
lower courts were modified to lower the crime from murder to homicide)

17.) PEOPLE vs GARCIA


HELD: In view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 87, in Civil Case No. Q-98-79961, convicting appellant of the crime of
murder is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Renato Garcia y Romano is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide, and he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4)
months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Appellant is ordered to pay the
heirs of the victim, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P58,257.90 as actual damages
and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

● In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence,


what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the
act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia
punible.8 Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that
reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or
failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing such act.
Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide or murder, what takes
the place of the element of malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is
the failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill taking into
account his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place. 9 ςrνll

● Appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution when he disregarded a


traffic sign cautioning motorists to slow down 10 and drove his vehicle in full
speed despite being aware that he was traversing a school zone and
pedestrians were crossing the street. He should have observed due diligence
of a reasonably prudent man by slackening his speed and proceeding
cautiously while passing the area.

18.) Rollie Calimutan vs. People of the Philippines - GR No. 152133


HELD:
MODIFIED Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and
is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period of 4 months of
arresto mayor to a maximum period of two years and one day of prision
correccional. Petitioner Calimutan is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim
Cantre the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the latter’s death and
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
● Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind (NOT
absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error)
● Proximate cause- Prosecution was able to establish that the proximate cause
of the death of the Cantre was the stone thrown at him by petitioner
Calimutan.
● Absence of intent, Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable
felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code
❖ Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing
or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment
or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy