Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 211 views

    People Vs Tiongson

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    Tingson was charged with murder and sentenced to death for killing a police officer while escaping from jail. The court found that the element of treachery was not present in the killings, so the crimes were punished as homicide instead of murder. The court also ruled out premeditation and other aggravating circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Tiongson

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    211 views1 page
    Tingson was charged with murder and sentenced to death for killing a police officer while escaping from jail. The court found that the element of treachery was not present in the killings, so the crimes were punished as homicide instead of murder. The court also ruled out premeditation and other aggravating circumstances.

    Original Description:

    people vs tionson

    Original Title

    People vs Tiongson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tingson was charged with murder and sentenced to death for killing a police officer while escaping from jail. The court found that the element of treachery was not present in the killings, so the crimes were punished as homicide instead of murder. The court also ruled out premeditation and other aggravating circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    211 views1 page

    People Vs Tiongson

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    Tingson was charged with murder and sentenced to death for killing a police officer while escaping from jail. The court found that the element of treachery was not present in the killings, so the crimes were punished as homicide instead of murder. The court also ruled out premeditation and other aggravating circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tingson was charged with Murder and sentenced to death penalty.

    Facts:

    Tiongson and his companions escaped from the Municipal Jail. While in the act of escaping, the said Rudy
    Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police force who was guarding him.

    The Solicitor General also agreed with the defendant's counsel that treachery is not present in the killing
    of PC Constable Aurelio M. Canela since the deceased was actually warned by PC Sgt. Saway not to remain
    standing but seek cover because of the known presence of the accused in the vicinity, but that the said
    deceased disregarded the warning.

    Ruling:

    Considering that 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, treachery cannot be appreciated.

    Since treachery, which would qualify the killing of Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder, was
    not present, the crimes may only be punished as Homicide.

    Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the 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, 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.

    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.

    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.

    the record does not show that the place was intentionally sought by the accused to facilitate the
    commission of the crime. The accused was trying to evade his pursuers, PC Constable Canela among them,
    and their encounter was purely by chance.

    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= no abuse of
    superior strength.

    You might also like