CRIM LAW DIGEST: People v. Escobal & Abano (GR No. 206292)

CRIMINAL LAW: Revised Penal Code, Book 1

GR NO. 206292                                                                                    October 11, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ESTRILLO ESCOBAL Y SALVACION AND MELVIN E. ABANO, Accused-Appellants.

BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINES:
Self-defense requires proof of unlawful agression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation.

Treachery is present when the accused uses means, methods or forms that tend directly and specially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the aggressor.

Conspiracy  requires an actual agreement before the commission of a crime. However, it need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

Implied Conspiracy arises when acts, even if not premeditated, are connected and cooperative, indicating a close personal association and agreement.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts are proven, and the combination of circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Each conspirator should perform an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to be held liable. Mere presence, knowledge or agreement alone is insufficient for liability.

Over or external acts are physical activities or deeds indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or prepration, which if carried out to its comlete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The act should have a causal relation to the intended crime.

FACTS:
  • Accused-Appellant, ESTRILLO ESCOBAL, admitted shooting and killing SPO1 Gaabucayan. The trial court found ESCOBAL guilty of murder based on the shooting. 
  • MELVIN ABANO, the co-accused, was implicated by the RTC due to his presence during the incident and his actions afterward;
  • Evidence of Prosecution includes eyewitness testimony, ballistic examination, and recovery of murder weapon; 
  • Defense presents a version of self-defense, claiming the victim was the aggressor;
  • The presence of treachery based on the manner of the attack and the shooting of the victim while lying helpless on the ground. Hence, RTC ruled Murder with Treachery;
  • CA affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications to increase civil indemnitty, moral damages, exemplary damages and temperate damages and added conspiracy between ESCOBAL and ABANO citing circumstances like Abano owning the firearm, accompanying Escobal and their actions after the shooting as evidence of conspiracy;
  • Since penalty is reclusion perpetua. Hence, the petition for review for certiorari was raised to the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Accused-Appellants acted in self-defense in the killing of SPO1 Fernando Gaabucayan, Jr.? -NO.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants? -NO.

RULING:
  • The Supreme Court rejected the plea of self-defense, emphasizing the failure to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or threat of real imminent injury, which was not established in this case.
  • Consequently, the SC cannot upheld the RTC's conviction of Abano on the sole basis of his having acted in conspiracy with Escobal. The records do not sustain the finding of conspiracy. CA and RTC agreed that ABANO did not perform any overt act during the shooting of Escobal, for without being shown to do so none of them will be liable as a con-conspirator, and each may only be held responsible for the results of his own acts. 
  • Hence, the SC acquitted Abano, while Escobal's conviction was reduced from Murder to Homicide since the manner of killing did not show treachery, which involves adopting means to ensure execution without risk to the offender. His sentence was modified to reclusion temporal with specified civil liabilities to the heirs of the victim.
SOURCE:
G.R. No. 206292. (n.d.). https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/oct2017/gr_206292_2017.html






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CRIM PRO Digest: Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 213847)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 114:  Bail, a Matter of Right; Exception G. R. No. 213847                 July 12, 2016 JUAN PONCE ENRILE , Petitioner, vs.  SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Respondents. BERSAMIN, J. : DOCTRINE: Primary objective of bail  – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good measure of the accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to  ensure that the accused appears at trial . Bail is a right and a matter of discretion  – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of ...
Read more

How to Digest a Case: FORMAT

  FORMAT OF A CASE DIGEST TITLE: Include the petitioner and respondents of the case and the reference. Sometimes, students only include the Volume Number of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)/Philippine Reports (Phil) and the first page where the case appeared or written. Others only include the Gazette Record Number together with the Date of the case. Still, others include both. Others even add the ponente or the justice that penned the case. FACTS: There is no need to include all the facts. Just include those that are relevant to the subject. The contents of the facts must be brief and concise. It must be limited to the main facts of the case which of course should focus on the particular subject assigned. ISSUES: Include only those that are relevant. Issues are usually framed in the form of questions that are answerable by "yes" or "no," for example, "Is the contract void? “Sometimes, students frame the question by starting it with the word "whe...
Read more

CRIM PRO Digest: Soria and Bista v. Desierto, et.al. (G.R. Nos. 153254-25)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 113:  Arrest, Duty of an Arresting Officer G. R. Nos. 153524-25                 January 31, 2005 RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA , Petitioners, vs.  HON. ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as Head of the Office of the Ombudsman, HON. ORLANDO CASIMIRO in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Military, P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE, SPO2 ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR JR., PO3 JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B. CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A. BENAZA, SPO1 FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL,  Respondents. CHICO-NAZARIO, J. : DOCTRINE: Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code states that the Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties provided in the preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial autho...
Read more