People Vs Tiongson

July 25, 1984 G.R. No. L-35123-24 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. RUDY TIONGSON, defendant-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Felipe L. Gozon for defendant-appellant. Facts: Murder 1:
the local Philippine Constabulary Command, while the latter was in hot pursuit of said accused who had earlier escaped from custody, thus fatefully resulting to the instantaneous death of the victim. Both offenses were qualified by the circumstance of treachery, and aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities and with abuse of superior strength. The second murder is also aggravated by the circumstance of its commission in an uninhabited place. Upon arraignment, the said accused, assisted by
On the 26th day of October, 1971, at 5:30 oclock in the afternoon, more or less, inside of the Municipal Building, of the Municipality of Bulalacao, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, RUDY TIONGSON, conspiring and confederating with George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, and under the pretext that they would answer the call of nature, convinced Police First Class Patrolman Zosimo Gelera to allow them to go out from their being confined and detained in the Municipal Jail of same Municipality by virtue of a previous offense, and while still hardly out of said jail ganged up said Zosimo Gelera, took the latters service pistol and with it, with treachery, shot point blank said police officer at his right cheek, tragically resulting to the victims instantaneous death and thereafter, made good their escape.
counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both informations. Issues: WoN there is treachery WoN there is an aggravating circumstance Held: Treachery cannot be appreciated since PC Constable Canela had been sufficiently forewarned of the presence of the appellant in the vicinity and that he was not completely deprived of an opportunity to prepare and repel or avoid the aggression. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with insult to public authorities, uninhabited place, and abuse of superior strength were not present in the commission of the crimes. Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the
Murder 2:
absence of sufficient proof that a plan to kill the victims existed, the execution of which was preceded by deliberate thought and reflection. Besides, with respect to the killing of PC Constable Canela, only ten minutes passed from the time the accused escaped from the Municipal Jail up to the time he shot PC Constable Canela near the cemetery, 14 so that there was no lapse of time during which he could have deliberately planned the killing of the said PC Constable and meditated on the consequences of his act.
On the same day, at 6:00 oclock in the evening, more

or less, at Rizal, of the Municipality of Bulalacao, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, RUDY TIONGSON, conspiring and confederating with Rolando Santiago and George de la Cruz, who are both at large by reason of their forced escape, and with treachery, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously waited in ambush, waylaid and shot one Constable 2nd Class AURELIO M. CANELA, a member of
The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed. Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority. The lower court also found that the killing of PC Constable Canela was committed in an uninhabited place. It has not been shown, however, that the offense was committed in an isolated place, far from human habitation. In order that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be considered, it is necessary that the place of occurrence be where there are no houses at all, a considerable distance from the village or town, or where the houses are a great distance apart. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed superior strength in the killing of Pat. Gelera. The accused was then a detainee and was unarmed while Pat. Gelera had his service pistol with him. With respect to PC Constable Canela, the accused was alone against three armed pursuers, namely: PC Sgt. Saway, PC Constable Canela, and Pat Nicandro Garcia, and a civilian by the name of Fred Barcelona. The accused is guilty only of the crime of Homicide in the killing of PC Constable Canela and Pat. Gelera. WHEREFORE, with the modification that the accused Rudy Tiongson should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each homicide committed by him, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is hereby increased to P30,000.00 in each case.

People Vs Tiongson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Tiongson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Tiongson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

July 25, 1984 G.R. No. L-35123-24 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. RUDY TIONGSON, defendant-appellant.

On the same day, at 6:00 oclock in the evening, more

You might also like