crrim rev digests

8/13/2019 Crrim Rev Digests

1/7

BETITO, Kathleen D. 10/17/2013

Criminal Law Review,A !t. "

#EO#LE v BERA$% &Ba!'(')

*ACT+Beling, the supposed wife of the accused, and his children, a four-year old and asix-month old, were boloed to death in the accused house. The first Governmentagents who arrived at the house were Constabulary Sergeant and the healthinspector.

The accused told the sergeant that he illed his wife and children because he wasmad with rage.

!n the same day, the accused, who showed some wounds, was ta en to thehospital.

"owever, the following day, the accused admitted that he illed his Beling and hischildren and having wounded himself on the nec and head, answering the#uestions of the fiscal in the presence of the Sergeant, deputy cler of court, andanother officer.

The appellant was charged in three different cases with parricide. "e was ac#uittedin one of them and found guilty in the other two. $rom these %udgments heappealed to the SC.

The accused contends that his guilt has not been established beyond a reasonabledoubt& that the testimony of his mother is contradictory. "e testified that while hewas sleeping, he was wounded by Beling, and when he wo e up he saw hisdaughter dead by his side, and upon noting that Beling was holding a bolo, hegrabbed it from her and gave her bolo blows, because according to him he too pityon his children.

I++-E'hether accused-appellant is deemed guilty of both parricide and homicide(

ELD )es. *etition + +, +ecision /ffirmed.

RATIO

0


2/7

$inding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illing his daughter and hisBeling, with whom he cohabited, in the absence of clear evidence of the marriage,the court considered the crime committed by Berang in illing his Beling ashomicide only, ac#uitted the accused in one of the three cases, while sentencinghim in the other.

$or the crime of homicide, an indeterminate penalty ranging from 1 months and 0day of prision mayor to 02 years and 0 day of reclusion temporal, as well as toindemnify the heirs of Beling in the amount of *2,333 was sentenced.

!n the third case, for the crime of parricide for the death of his daughter, itsentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua, and to pay the costs in both cases,without pronouncement as to the indemnity for the death of said daughter,considering that the accused, as the father, is the presumptive heir of thedeceased.

#EO#LE v ALI$%

*ACT+

ori%a 4ohamad was stabbed in the chest. The victim was brought to the hospital,however, she died two days later.

/irol /ling, the accused and husband of the accused under muslim rites, wasinvestigated by the police.

"e declared in the Chavacano that he illed his wife because he was informed inprison by his relatives that his wife was living with another man and fooling aroundwith other men.

Two policemen in their affidavit of affirmed that /irol admitted to the Seargant intheir presence that he stabbed his wife because she had been going with many men.

/ling was charged with parricide. t was alleged in the information that /irol was aconvict serving sentence at the penal colony for robbery with frustrated homicide.

The case was called for arraignment. The accused signified his willingness to pleadguilty although he had no lawyer. / counsel de oficio was appointed for him. Thetrial court granted counsel5s motion to transfer the arraignment. !n that date, by

2


3/7

agreement of the parties, the arraignment was again transferred three more times.!n that last date, the information was translated into the Tausug dialect which isspo en by the accused. 'ith the assistance of his counsel, he pleaded guilty.

Then, the accused was placed on the witness stand and examined by his counsel."e admitted that he illed his wife. "e declared that after he was informed by hiscounsel that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment, he,nevertheless, admitted the illing of his wife because that was the truth.

n answer to the #uestion of the fiscal, the accused said that he understood that bypleading guilty he could be sentenced to death or reclusion perpetua because hewas an escaped convict.

"e said that he was not coerced nor ca%oled into entering a plea of guilty. "eadmitted that he was a prisoner in the penal colony.

"e stated during trial that he is a 4uslim belonging to the Samal tribe of Siasi Sulu."e illed his wife because while he was in prison, she did not visit him and sheneglected their four children.

"e was able to leave the penal colony because he was a 6living-out-prisoner6. 'henhe went to his house, his purpose was to be reconciled with his wife but when shesaw him, instead of waiting for him, she ran away. "e had information that his wifewas guilty of infidelity or had a 6 abit6. That was a grievous offense under 4uslimcustoms

"e identified his signature in his confession which was sworn to before the cler ofcourt.

The trial court sentenced /irol /ling to death and to pay an indemnity of twelvethousand pesos to the heirs of ori%a 4ohamad. t noted that he pleaded guilty withfull nowledge of the meaning and conse#uences of his plea.

The case was elevated to the SC for automatic review of the death penalty.

Counsel de oficio contends that the marriage of /irol to ori%a was not indubitablyproven. That contention cannot be sustained. The testimony of the accused that hewas married to the deceased was an admission against his penal interest. t was aconfirmation of the maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption6that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have enteredinto a lawful contract of marriage6.

7


4/7

I++-E

'hether petitioner should be convicted of the crime of parricide(

ELD E+. *etition + +, TC /ffirmed. Guilty of Parricide. HOWEVER, since only

Justices (Barredo, Ma asiar, !ntonio, !"uino, #oncepcion Jr., Guerrero, !$ad %antos,&e #astro and Melencio'Herrera )oted for t*e imposition of t*e deat* penalty,

+ud ment is affirmed -it* t*e modification t*at, for lac of one )ote, t*e accused issentenced to reclusion perpetua

RATIO

"e and the deceased had five children, he alluded in his testimony to the victim8s

father as his father-in-law, which implies, the fact that he bitterly resented herinfidelity, her failure to visit him in prison, and her neglect of their children impliesthat the deceased was his lawful wife and confirmatory of their marital status.

The contention that the accused did not understand fully he nature and effect of hisplea of guilty is belied by the record. The trial %udge, a 4uslim, too pans to followthe rule that in case a plea of guilty is entered in a capital case, evidence should bereceived in order to leave no room for reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty ofthe offense charged and that he had full nowledge of the meaning andconse#uences of his plea of guilty.

n this case, the arraignment was postponed three times in order to enable hiscounsel to confer with him and explain to him the conse#uences of his plea ofguilty. The accused testified. "is confession and the affidavit of the policemen whoinvestigated him were presented in evidence.

The contention that the crime was mitigated by the plea of guilty lac of intention tocommit so grave a wrong and the circumstance that the accused is a non-Christianis not well ta en because he is a #uasi-recidivist. The special aggravatingcircumstance of #uasi-recidivism cannot be offset by generic investigatingcircumstances.

The fact that he escaped from confinement in order to ill his wife shows a highdegree of perversity and incorrigibility "is being a non-Christian cannot serve toextenuate the heinousness of his offense. "e understood the gravity of his crime

9


5/7

because he had attained some education. "e reached first year high school and heused to be a chec er in a stevedoring firm.

#EO#LE v +-BA$O

*ACT+

Subano and his wife Ban alot had a #uarrel because the latter, then suffering froma headache, refused to wor in their ai:gin. The defendant then remar ed in a fitof anger that it would be better if she were dead. The #uarrel was resumed thefollowing morning when she again refused to accompany her husband to a cree ofthe 4acasin ;iver to catch fish& but this time, defendant dragged her along withhim. 'hen he returned home the afternoon of that day, he was alone and was

noticeably pale and restless.

bol, father of Ban alot, and Biwang, father of another wife of the Subano, noticedbloodstains on his $olo and on its scabbard. Subano sought to explain thesebloodstains as of a big fish which he had cut. They noticed, however, that theSubano had not brought home any fish. Suspecting the something might be wrong,

bol as ed the defendant where his daughter was. Subano disclaimed nowledge ofher whereabouts. 'ith nightfall bringing no sign of Ban alot8s coming, bol andBiwang began searching for her.

$our days later, they found her dead body lying in an isolated place in the middle ofa cree of a ;iver with a mortal wound on the bac and another at the nec whichalmost severed the head from the body, and with several contusions.

The


6/7

'hether defendant is guilty of parricide(

ELD >

!. +ecision 4!+ $ +. The crime committed is homicide and not parricide.

RATIO

The identity of the accused as the author of the crime has been established beyondreasonable doubt.

Before conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstancesproved should constitute an unbro en chain which leads to one fair and reasonableconclusion pointing to the defendant, to the exclusion of all others, as the author ofthe crime. This re#uirement has been fully met in the instant case, as the chain ofprior and subse#uent circumstances mentioned leaves no room for doubt as to theidentity of the accused as the author of the crime, unless otherwise satisfactorilyexplained.

Ho-e)er, t*e crime committed is *omicide and not parricide . rom t*e testimony ofE$ol, fat*er of t*e deceased, it appears t*at t*e defendant *as t*ree -i)es and t*att*e deceased -as t*e last in point of time. !lt*ou * t*e practice of poly amy isappro)ed $y custom amon t*ese non'#*ristians, poly amy, *o-e)er, is notsactioned $y t*e Marria e /a- -*ic* merely reco ni0es tri$al marria e rituals. 1*edeceased, under our la-, is not t*us t*e la-ful -ife of t*e defendant and t*is

precludes con)iction for t*e crime of parricide.

?udgment is modified and the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty offrom eight years of prision mayor to fifteen years of reclusion temporal , with costs.

#EO#LE v D-E$O, et al.

*ACT+

The group of the trhree accused, namely $elipe +ueno and Sofronio +ueno, and/ndresito Belonio, were all armed with pistol, revolver and fighting bolo, conspiringwith one another shot and hit Bernardo +emontano which resulted to his death.

1


7/7

@pon arraignment all of the accused pleaded not guilty. /t the trial, the prosecutionpresented its testimonial evidence.

The appeal was directed to the Court of /ppeals, but, in view of the penaltyinvolved, the records were forwarded to the SC. /fter the case had been submittedfor decision, appellants $elipe +ueno and Sofronio +ueno, withdrew their appeals.

These withdrawals were allowed,hence, only the appeal of accused appellant/ndresito Belonio is wider review in this decision.

I++-E'hether accused-appellants committed murder under(

ELD

) S. *etition + +. TC +ecision /ffirmed, with the modification that the indemnityto be paid to the heirs of the deceased should be without subsidiary imprisonmentin case of insolvency

RATIO1*e e)idence for t*e prosecution esta$lis* t*at t*e t*ree accused'appellants firedupon Ro"ue &ellomos and ederico &olfo $ut missed t*em2 and in t*e e)enin oft*e same day, t*e t*ree a ain -ere 3dentified as t*e assailants -*o fired upon and

illed Bernardo &emonta4o -*o -as mista en for Ro"ue &ellomos and5or ederico&olfo. 3t also appears t*at t*eir defense of ali$i -as not -ort*y of credence. 1*e

uilt of t*e t*ree accused'appellants, t*erefore, *as $een esta$lis*ed and pro)ed$eyond reasona$le dou$t.

There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty of lifeimprisonment or reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty in accordance.

The civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, however, should be raised from. The trial court5s decision should accordingly be modified.

/ccused-appellants $elipe +ueno and Sofronio +ueno had withdrawn their appeals,and the decision of the trial court already became final and executory as to them.

The decision is binding as to the third accused-appellant, /ndresito Belonio, whopursued his appeal.

A

crrim rev digests

Documents