US v Guevarra

FACTS:

- GUEVARRA SLASHED HIS WIFE WITH A BOLO SEVERAL TIMES CAUSING 3 WOUNDS WHILE STARCHING CLOTHES

- COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE TRIED TO PROVE THAT GUEVARRA WAS SUFFERING FROM A FIT OF INSANITY

- COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SAID GUEVARRA WAS GUILTY FOR CRIME OF PARRICIDE

ISSUE:

-W/N CFI ERRED IN CLASSIFYING ACT AS PARRICIDE

- W/N CFI ERRED IN NOT REGARDING THE PLEA OF INSANITY FOR DEFENDANT

- W/N CFI ERRED IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT

HELD:

- NO GROUND TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION OF DEFENSE THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS PARRICIDE

- NOTHING IN THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT GUEVARRA WAS NOT OF SOUND MIND NOR WAS HE UNDER A SUDDEN ATTACK OF INSANITY. THE ACTS OF “INSANITY” MAY HAVE BEEN FEIGNED BY GUEVARRA AFTER HE HAD LEARNED THAT HE COMMITTED A GRAVE CRIME. (DEFENDANT ACTED AS IF HE WAS TERRIFIED WHEN THE PRES. OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH TOOK HIS BLOOD SAMPLE, THAT HE WAS NAKED AND LYING FACE DOWNWARDS W/O KNOWING WHAT HE WAS DOING AND SWIMMING IN HIS OWN URINE IN JAIL) PRES. OF BOARD OF HEALTH OBSERVED THAT HE DEFENDANT NEVER BEHAVED IN AN IRRATIONAL CONDITION. DEFENDANT DID NOT SHOW ANY SIGNS OF PERTURBED REASON DURING HIS STAY IN THE COMPANY OF HIS WIFE

- NOT ERRED IN IMPOSING LIFE IMPRISONMENT, AS PENALIZED IN ART 402 OF THE PENAL CODE

US v Tanedo

FACTS:

- PETENIA, CASTANEDA AND LUGON CONSPIRED TO KILL AND ROB MRS.GUANLAO OF HER VALUABLES. PETENIA COVERED THE MOUTH OF GUANLAO, LUGON HIT HER WITH ADOBE STONE. PETENIA DELIVERED FISTIC BLOWS. AS GUANLAO FELL TO THE GROUND, LUGON AND PETENIA HIT HER AGAIN TWICE AND CAUSED HER DEATH.

- PETENIA AND CASTANEDA WERE ARRESTED FOR ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

ISSUE:
- W/N LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THEIR EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

-W/N LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN CONSPIRACY

- W/N LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THEM CAUSE OF EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE (UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR)

HELD:

- NO. BURDEN IS ON DEFENSE TO PROVE THAT A CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT OR PROMISE OF REWARD OR LENIENCY. NO EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS WERE BY FORCE.

- NO. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE COMMITTED CRIME SHOW A SINGLE PURPOSE AND IN UNISON WITH EACH ACT OF THE ACCUSED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSE

- NO. REQUISITES MUST BE PRESENT. (EXISTENCE OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR, FEAR MUST BE REAL AND IMMINENT, FEAR OF INJURY IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE COMMITTED ACT) PETENIA CONTENDED THAT HE DELIVERED FISTIC BLOWS BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID THAT LUGON AND CASTANEDA WILL HIT HIM WITH HOLLOW BLOCKS. CASTANEDA CLAIMED THAT HE RANSACKED BEDROOM OF GUANLAO BECAUSE LUGON AND PETENIA POKED A KNIFE AT HIM. COURT SAID CASTANEDA COULD HAVE EASILY ESCAPED WHEN HE WAS ALREADY AT THE HOUSE OF VICTIM. GUILT OF ACCUSED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

People v Petenia

FACTS:

PETENIA, CASTANEDA AND LUGON CONSPIRED TO KILL AND ROB MRS.GUANLAO OF HER VALUABLES. PETENIA COVERED THE MOUTH OF GUANLAO, LUGON HIT HER WITH ADOBE STONE. PETENIA DELIVERED FISTIC BLOWS. AS GUANLAO FELL TO THE GROUND, LUGON AND PETENIA HIT HER AGAIN TWICE AND CAUSED HER DEATH.

PETENIA AND CASTANEDA WERE ARRESTED FOR ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

ISSUE:

- W/N LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THEIR EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

-W/N LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN CONSPIRACY

- W/N LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THEM CAUSE OF EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE (UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR)

HELD:

- NO. BURDEN IS ON DEFENSE TO PROVE THAT A CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT OR PROMISE OF REWARD OR LENIENCY. NO EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS WERE BY FORCE.

- NO. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE COMMITTED CRIME SHOW A SINGLE PURPOSE AND IN UNISON WITH EACH ACT OF THE ACCUSED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSE

- NO. REQUISITES MUST BE PRESENT. (EXISTENCE OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR, FEAR MUST BE REAL AND IMMINENT, FEAR OF INJURY IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE COMMITTED ACT) PETENIA CONTENDED THAT HE DELIVERED FISTIC BLOWS BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID THAT LUGON AND CASTANEDA WILL HIT HIM WITH HOLLOW BLOCKS. CASTANEDA CLAIMED THAT HE RANSACKED BEDROOM OF GUANLAO BECAUSE LUGON AND PETENIA POKED A KNIFE AT HIM. COURT SAID CASTANEDA COULD HAVE EASILY ESCAPED WHEN HE WAS ALREADY AT THE HOUSE OF VICTIM. GUILT OF ACCUSED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.