Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 763 views

    People Vs Apolinar CA 38

    Uploaded by

    M Azeneth JJ
    The defendant shot and wounded Domingo Petras who was carrying a sack of palay from a field tilled by the defendant. The defendant claimed he shot in self-defense, believing Petras was stealing palay. However, the court found defense of property cannot justify shooting unless coupled with an attack on one's person. While legitimate self-defense did not apply, the court found extenuating circumstances of confusion and voluntary surrender, reducing the sentence from homicide to 2-8 years imprisonment. The judgment was thus modified, with all other aspects affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Apolinar CA 38

    Uploaded by

    M Azeneth JJ
    763 views2 pages
    The defendant shot and wounded Domingo Petras who was carrying a sack of palay from a field tilled by the defendant. The defendant claimed he shot in self-defense, believing Petras was stealing palay. However, the court found defense of property cannot justify shooting unless coupled with an attack on one's person. While legitimate self-defense did not apply, the court found extenuating circumstances of confusion and voluntary surrender, reducing the sentence from homicide to 2-8 years imprisonment. The judgment was thus modified, with all other aspects affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Defense of Property

    Original Title

    People vs Apolinar CA 38-Converted

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant shot and wounded Domingo Petras who was carrying a sack of palay from a field tilled by the defendant. The defendant claimed he shot in self-defense, believing Petras was stealing palay. However, the court found defense of property cannot justify shooting unless coupled with an attack on one's person. While legitimate self-defense did not apply, the court found extenuating circumstances of confusion and voluntary surrender, reducing the sentence from homicide to 2-8 years imprisonment. The judgment was thus modified, with all other aspects affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    763 views2 pages

    People Vs Apolinar CA 38

    Uploaded by

    M Azeneth JJ
    The defendant shot and wounded Domingo Petras who was carrying a sack of palay from a field tilled by the defendant. The defendant claimed he shot in self-defense, believing Petras was stealing palay. However, the court found defense of property cannot justify shooting unless coupled with an attack on one's person. While legitimate self-defense did not apply, the court found extenuating circumstances of confusion and voluntary surrender, reducing the sentence from homicide to 2-8 years imprisonment. The judgment was thus modified, with all other aspects affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    No. 1744.

    July 19, 1938]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ANASTACIG APOLINAR,


    defendant and appellant
    PENAL LAW: HOMICIDE; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY AS EXTENUATION FOR CRIMINAL
    LIABILITY. — The deceased, upon receiving the fatal blow, was carrying on his arms a sack
    of palay coming from the land tilled by the defendant. I[t is said: That the right to property
    is not of such umportance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a
    justifying circumstance only

    when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one erttrusted with said property. (from
    the Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain)

    APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Felix J. The facts are
    stated in the opinion of the court,

    HONTIVEROS, ./.,

    Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias
    Atong was at that time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by Joaquin Gonzales in
    Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan. Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking over
    said land when he observed that there was a man carrying a bundle on his shoulder.
    Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant called his attention but he ignored
    him, Thereafter, the defendant fired in the air and then at the person, who however
    managed to flee. The person, who would later be tdentified as Domingo Petras, was able to
    get back to his house and consequently narrated to Angel Natividad, the barrio chief, that
    he had been wounded in the back by a shotgun for getting palay from the part of the land
    tilled by the appellant Atong. He then showed the two wounds - one in each side of the
    spinal column - which wounds were circular in form and a

    little bigger than a quarter of an inch, according to the medical report of Dr. Mananquil,
    from which it could be inferred that the shotgun of the defendant was loaded with... .

    The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident and gave a
    sworn statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on December 23, 1936.
    He stated that on that night, upon seeing a person coming from the water, carrying a sack
    filled with palay, he shouted to ask who it was but since there was no response, he fired in
    the air. Then, he asked again, and since the man gave no response still and instead tured
    around and started to flee, he fired at him, The defendant said nothing regarding any
    aggression (earlier) committed or attempted by said man toward the barrio chief Bonifacio
    Mendones, which aggression is now the basis of his defense before the Court of First
    Instance of Pangasinan when this issue was raised. Said defense, therefore, is untenable,
    Moreover, according to the defendant and his witnesses, the aggression against Mendones
    was carried out by said Petras
    with a bolo, In the present case, no bolo has been presented before the Court a guo, which
    would have supported the defense if indeed the deceased had been armed that night,

    rag fre. i cee - e Bed es Am

    wd ote at eR

    any wT ¢ f et Beas oe"

    Evidence shows that upon getting seriously wounded, he was carrying the sack of palay on
    his arms coming from the land tilled by the | defendant, However, this is not sufficient for
    the defendani to be justified in shooting the deceased. The right to property is not of such
    importance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
    circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with
    said property,

    Although legitimate defense cannot be appreciated in favor of the defendant in the case at
    bar, the extenuating circumstances of obfuscation can nonetheless be considered in his
    favor. (and that of voluntary surrender to the authorities. The presence of these two
    circumstances without any aggravating circumstance reduces the sentence to the next
    lower penalty for the sentenced crime, i.¢. prisién mayor, pursuant to the proyisigns of par.
    5 of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering the facts of the case, we decide that
    judgment must be modified. We believe that it must be modified by imposing on the
    defendant and appellant an indeterminate Penalty with a minimum of 2 years of prision
    correccional and a maximum of 8 years and one day of prision mayor With this
    modification, we affirm all other respects of the appealed decision with costs against
    appellant. So ordered.

    Horrilleno, Pres., Paras, imperial and Albert, MM... concur. Judgment modified

    You might also like