Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able to prove that the killing was committed by means of poison in consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crime to murder were not alleged in the
Information.
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty which attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since none of them have been alleged in the information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such.
Aggravating; Nighttime; Band (1994)
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide. Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.
However, band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
Aggravating; Recidivism (2001)
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with
Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and,
again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.
Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered ...
Aggravating; Recidivism vs. Quasi-Recidivism (1998)
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi- recidivism. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In recidivism -
1
The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code; and2
This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be effect by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm -
1
The convictions are not for crimesembraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that was
committed by the offender before serving sentence by final judgment for another crime or while
serving sentence for another crime; and
2
This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.Aggravating; Treachery & Unlawful Entry (1997)
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of one big house. The accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the suspected relation between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the apartment of the victim through an unlocked window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds, which caused his death within a few hours.
25 of 86
Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Evident premeditation cannot be
considered against the accused because he resolved to kill the victim "later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
2. TREACHERY may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and specially insured the execution of the act without risk himself arising from the defense which the victim might have made (People vs. Dequina. 60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et at. 90 Phil. 91).
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused
deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act. The Intention to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission (People vs Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the proper place for entrance into the house (Art. 14. par. 18. Revised Penal Code, People vs. Baruga 61 Phil. 318).
ALTERNATIVE
CIRCUMSTANCES
Alternative Circumstances; Intoxication (2002)
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt
PERSONS Criminally Liable for
FELONIES
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found to be in possession of recently stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop at Zapote
Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial that she merely bought the same from one named Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of fencing against her
(Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts the
buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the administrative procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to escape liability.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any similarity between them?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower.
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)
What are the elements of fencing?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The elements of fencing are:
a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;