Documents

digest

Description
Description:
Categories
Published
of 44
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  60. People vs. Agacer {conspiracy,treachery} Facts Florencio, Eddie, Elynor, Franklin and Eric, all surnamed Agacer, are found guilty for the killing of a common relative, Cesario Agacer. The appellants surrounded the victim and one of them set a fire to keep Cesario from retreating. Franklin and Eric hit the deceased with stones, Florencio induces the victim to come closer, was hit with a gunshot from Eddie and was shot with a bow and arrow by Elynor.They left the crime scene together, onboard a tractor and a tricycle. Issues - Whether or not conspiracy was involved and if all appellants are liable for the murder - Whether or not appellants are guilty of the aggravating circumstance of treachery Held/Ratio YES. In the case at bar, conspiracy is evident in the way the appellants surprised, surrounded,attacked and abandoned the deceased together. Proof of previous agreement is not essential because all acted in unison pursuing one goal, which is to kill the victim. Distinguishing the fatal blow is immaterial in indicting appellants for criminal liability; all are equally liable for murder since conspiracy is present. YES. Treachery was present, fulfilling the conditions that first, the victim was not given the opportunity to defend himself and second, that the means of execution was deliberate (evident in the fact that the accused carried the weapons employed) 61. People vs. Bayotas PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO BAYOTAS y CORDOVA, accused-appellant G.R. No. 102207. September 2, 1994 FACTS: Rogelio Bayotas, accused and charged with Rape, died on February 4, 1992 due to cardio respiratory arrest. The Solicitor General then submitted a comment stating that the death of the accused does not excuse him from his civil liability ( supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs Sendaydiego). On the other hand, the counsel of the accused claimed that in the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs Castillo, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before the final judgement is rendered. ISSUE:  Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability. RULING: The Court decided on this case through stating the cases of Castillo and Sendaydiego. In the Castillo case, the Court said that civil liability is extinguished only when death of the accused occurred before the final judgement. Judge Kapunan further stated that civil liability is extinguished because there will be “no party defendant” in the case. There will be no c ivil liability if criminal liability does not exist. Further, the Court stated “it is, thus, evident that… the rule established was that the survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be predicated on the sources of obligations other than delict. In the Sendaydiego case, the Court issued Resolution of July 8, 1977 where it states that civil liability will only survive if death came after the final judgement of the CFI of Pangasinan. However, Article 30 of the Civil Code could not possibly lend support to the ruling in Sendaydiego. Civil liability ex delicto is extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on appeal. The Court also gave a summary on which cases should civil liability be extinguished, to wit: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Therefore, Bayotas’s death extinguished his criminal and civil liability based solely on the act complained of. 62. CANCIO VS. ISIP G.R. No. 133978 November 12, 2002 Facts: The accused, EmerenciaIsip, was charged with 3 counts of violation of B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law and 3 cases of Estafa. One of the B.P. 22 cases was dismissed due to it being deposited before 90 days from the date written on the check. The other two cases of B.P. 22 were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga and were then dismissed due to the failure of the prosecution to prosecute the crime.Meanwhile the three cases of Estafa were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga. After failing to present its second witness, the prosecution dismissed the Estafa case. The prosecution reserved its right to file a separate civil action from the said criminal cases. The court granted the reservation. The criminal case of Estafa was then dismissed without prejudice to the civil action. On December 15, 1997, petitioner filed the instant case for the collection of the sum of money, seeking to recover the amount of the check subject to the Estafa cases. Respondent then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending that the petition is already barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata. Issue:  Whether or not the respondents can file a separate civil action regardless of the dismissal of the criminal case of estafa. Ruling : The Supreme Court ruled that the civil action can prosper. The reservation for civil action was made by the prosecution on time. According to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states that civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal case unless there is are servation of the right to file a separate civil action.In the case at bar, the complaint is clearly based on culpa contractual. The cause of action was the breach of the respon dent’s breach of the contractual obligation. Evidently, the petitioner was seeking to make good the value written on the checks in exchange for cash. The case was not anchored the criminal aspect of estafa but on the civil aspect of culpa contractual. As such, it is distinct and independent from the estafa case filed against the offender and may proceed regardless of the result of the criminal proceedings. -- CANCIO V. ISIP  FACTS: Cancio filed cases of violation of BP22 and cases of estafa against Respondent. The BP22 cases were dismissed on the ground of “failure to prosecute.” As to the estafa cases, the prosecution moved to dismiss after failing to present its second witness. The prosecution likewise reserved its right to file a separate civil action arising from the said criminal cases. TheTC granted.Cancio then filed the instant case for collection of sum of money, seeking to recover the amount of the checks subject of the estafa cases. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending tha t petitioner’s action is barred by the doctrine of res  judicata. Respondent further prayed that petitioner should be held in contempt of court for forum-shopping. The TC found in favor of the respondent. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent bars the institution of a civil action for collection of the value of the checks subject of the estafa cases; WON the filing of said civil action violated the anti-forum-shopping rule. HELD: NO.  An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto, under Art100 of the RPC;and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action. Either of these two possible liabilities may been forced against the offender subject, however, to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party “cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission” or under  both causes.Under the present Rules, the civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted with the criminal action,but the offended party is given the option to file a separate civil action before the prosecution starts to present evidence. Anent the independent civil actions, under the present Rules, the independent civil actions may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action.In the case at bar, a reading of the complaint filed by petitioner show that his cause of ac tion is based on culpa contractual, an independent civil action. Cancio’s cause of action is the respondent’s breach of the contractual obligation. The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action. The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief.There is also no forum-shopping. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively,to secure a favorable judgment.  Although the cases filed by petitioner arose from the same actor omission of respondent, they are, however, based on different causes of action. The criminal cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual. Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action. 63. BARREDO VS. GARCIA FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEO ALMARIO, respondents No. 48006. July 8, 1942 Facts:  A head-on collision between a taxicab owned by Barredo and a carretela occurred. The carretela was overturned and one of its passengers, a 16-year old boy, the son of Garcia and Almario, died as a result of the injuries which he received. The driver of the taxicab, an employee of Barredo, was prosecuted for the crime and was convicted. When the criminal case was instituted, Garcia and Almario reserved their right to institute a separate civil action for damages. Subsequently, Garcia and Almario instituted a civil action for damages against Barredo, the employer of the taxicab driver. Issue: Whether or not they can file a separate civil action against Fausto Barredo making him primarily and directly responsible Held:

TIFO

Sep 22, 2019
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x