Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 207 views

    Licyayo Vs People

    Uploaded by

    khailcaleb
    Licyayo was convicted of homicide for stabbing Rufino, who punched him first during a fight while Licyayo was intoxicated. Licyayo appealed, arguing that sufficient provocation from Rufino and his intoxication should be considered mitigating circumstances. The court upheld the conviction, finding that while witnesses testified Licyayo was drunk, there was no evidence that the amount of liquor affected his mental state. Licyayo recalling details of the night showed he was aware of his actions, so intoxication could not be a mitigating circumstance.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Licyayo Vs People

    Uploaded by

    khailcaleb
    207 views1 page
    Licyayo was convicted of homicide for stabbing Rufino, who punched him first during a fight while Licyayo was intoxicated. Licyayo appealed, arguing that sufficient provocation from Rufino and his intoxication should be considered mitigating circumstances. The court upheld the conviction, finding that while witnesses testified Licyayo was drunk, there was no evidence that the amount of liquor affected his mental state. Licyayo recalling details of the night showed he was aware of his actions, so intoxication could not be a mitigating circumstance.

    Original Description:

    alternative circumstance of intoxication

    Original Title

    Licyayo vs People

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Licyayo was convicted of homicide for stabbing Rufino, who punched him first during a fight while Licyayo was intoxicated. Licyayo appealed, arguing that sufficient provocation from Rufino and his intoxication should be considered mitigating circumstances. The court upheld the conviction, finding that while witnesses testified Licyayo was drunk, there was no evidence that the amount of liquor affected his mental state. Licyayo recalling details of the night showed he was aware of his actions, so intoxication could not be a mitigating circumstance.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    207 views1 page

    Licyayo Vs People

    Uploaded by

    khailcaleb
    Licyayo was convicted of homicide for stabbing Rufino, who punched him first during a fight while Licyayo was intoxicated. Licyayo appealed, arguing that sufficient provocation from Rufino and his intoxication should be considered mitigating circumstances. The court upheld the conviction, finding that while witnesses testified Licyayo was drunk, there was no evidence that the amount of liquor affected his mental state. Licyayo recalling details of the night showed he was aware of his actions, so intoxication could not be a mitigating circumstance.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LICYAYO vs PEOPLE 547 SCRA 598 Facts Licyayo was charged of Homicide with the RTC when he stabbed

    Rufino in different parts of the body. The RTC convicted Licyayo guilty of the crime Homicide there being no attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The petitioner appealed contending that sufficient provocation and intoxication should be taken as mitigating circumstances attendant in the case. He insisted that there is sufficient provocation because it was the deceased who punched him first and when the incident ensued he was intoxicated. Issue Whether intoxication should be considered as mitigating circumstances attendant in the case. Held As testified by the police officers, they said that petitioner indeed was drunk when the scuffle ensued. However, these testimonies alone do not suffice as proof to appreciate intoxication as a mitigating circumstance. In the case at bar, there is no plausible evidence showing that the quantity of liquor taken by petitioner was of such quantity as to affect his mental faculties. On the contrary, the fact that petitioner could recall the details that transpired during and after his drinking session with friends is the best proof that he knew what he was doing during the incident.

    You might also like