Criminal Law 1 Aggravating Circumstance - Abuse of Superior Strength

PEOPLE VS DE JESUS AND MORALES

G.R. No. 186528, January 26 2011 [Aggravating Circumstance - Abuse of Superior Strength]

FACTS:
Santiago and Armando Arasula, and the two accused were attending a birthday party. When Santiago was already home he heard his brother shout. He ran towards his brother and saw de Jesus and Morales still grabbing him with a small bolo. He ordered the two to stop, they ran away and, upon reaching Armando, he found out that he was already dead.

De Jesus admitted the killing but claimed it as a self-defense. The trial court declared de Jesus and Morales guilty of murder. The accused appeal to the CA, argued that, assuming arguendo that they committed the act of killing Armando Arasula, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of superior strength. CA denied and dismissed the appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present in this case.

RULING:
Yes. SC held that the trial court was correct in convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of murder attended by aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. As testified by Santiago Arasula, the lone eyewitness, the two accused were stabbing his brother, who was unarmed and intoxicated.  It is clear, therefore, that Armando was in no position to defend himself from two armed assailants, who, as Santiago testified, were armed with small bolos.  While it is true that superiority in number does not per se mean superiority in strength, accused-appellants in this case did not only enjoy superiority in number, but were armed with weapons, while the victim had no means with which to defend himself. Accused-appellants took advantage of their number and weapons, as well as the condition of the victim, to commit the crime. 

Categories: , , 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OBLIGATION & CONTRACTS Art. 1156 - 1161

Obligation & Contracts By: Pineda Article 1156 Obligation - An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.  The term obligation is derived from the Latin word " Obligatio " which means tying or binding. The words " juridical necessity " connote that in case of noncompliance, there will be legal sanctions. As per Brugi, Obligation is a juridical tie between two persons, by virtue of which one of them, the creditor, has the right to demand of the other, the debtor, a definite prestation. On the other hand, Manresa defined it as a legal relation established between one party and another whereby the latter is bound to the fulfillment of a prestation which the former may demand of him. Arias defined obligation is a juridical relation  whereby a person (called the creditor) may demand from another (called the debtor) the observance of determinate conduct, and, in case of breach, may obtain satisfaction from the assets of the latter.
Read more

Article 1278

Image
Compensation By: Gretzen M. Colona Article 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. Compensation is the extinguishment to the concurrent amount of the debts of two persons who, in their own right, are debtors and creditors of each other. Ang compensasyon ay magaganap kung parehong may utang at nagpautang ang bawat isa sa isa't isa. Example: D owes C 5000 Php. C owes D 5000 Php. The parties do not need to pay each other as their obligations are extinguished by compensation. Kinds of Compensation 1. By its effect or extent. a. Total- when both obligations are of the same amount.  b. Partial- when the two obligations are of different amounts. 2. By its cause or origin: a. Legal- when it takes place by operation of law even without the knowledge of the parties. b. Voluntary- when it takes place by agreement of the parties. c. Judicial- when it takes place by order from a
Read more

PEREZ vs POMAR Case Digest

Perez vs Pomar 2 Phil. 682 (1903) March 12, 2016 FACTS Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the Court to determine the amount due him for services rendered as an interpreter for Pomar and for judgement to be rendered in his favor. Pomar, on his part, denied having sought the services of Perez, contending that, Perez being his friend, he only accepted the services for they were rendered in a spontaneous, voluntary and officious manner. ISSUE Whether or not consent has been given by the other party. HELD Yes. It does not appear that any written contract was entered into between the parties for the employment of the plaintiff as interpreter, or that any other innominate contract was entered into, but whether the plaintiff’s services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the ren
Read more