Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    G.R. No. 119380 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Federico Lopez at Amboy Lopez, Accused-App August 19, 1999 Fact

    Uploaded by

    Bug Rancher
    G.R. No. 119380 August 19, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO LOPEZ @ AMBOY LOPEZ, accused-app

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 119380 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Federico Lopez at Amboy Lopez, Accused-App August 19, 1999 Fact

    Uploaded by

    Bug Rancher
    1K views2 pages
    G.R. No. 119380 August 19, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO LOPEZ @ AMBOY LOPEZ, accused-app

    Original Title

    CRIM PEOPLE vs LOPEZ

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    G.R. No. 119380 August 19, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO LOPEZ @ AMBOY LOPEZ, accused-app

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    G.R. No. 119380 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Federico Lopez at Amboy Lopez, Accused-App August 19, 1999 Fact

    Uploaded by

    Bug Rancher
    G.R. No. 119380 August 19, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO LOPEZ @ AMBOY LOPEZ, accused-app

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    119380
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    FEDERICO LOPEZ @ AMBOY LOPEZ, accused-app
    August 19, 1999
    FACT:
    At around 6:00 in the evening of November 15, 1991, Mario Seldera, 11, his father Rogelio
    Seldera, and his cousin Rodolfo Padapat worked in the riceland of a certain Lagula in Umingan,
    Pangasinan. The three were hired to bundle the palay stalks which had been cut. As it was a
    moonlit night, the three worked in the field until around 9:00 when they started for home taking a
    trail alongside the river. As they reached a sloping portion in the trail, accused-appellant
    Federico Lopez appeared armed with a shotgun. Accused-appellant had a companion, a dark
    man. He was unarmed. Without uttering a word, accused-appellant fired at the three, who
    slumped forward, face down. Accused-appellant’s companion went near the bodies of the
    victims and rolled them over with his foot. Satisfied that the victims were dead, accused-
    appellant and his companion left.
    Mario, the youngest in the group, was not killed. As soon as accused-appellant and his
    companion had left, Mario stood up and, crying, he walked to the house of his uncle, Alfredo
    Padapat, the father of Rodolfo, and reported the matter. Mario’s mother was fetched from their
    house and told what had happened to Rogelio and Rodolfo. The three then reported the incident
    to the barangay captain who accompanied them to the police in Umingan, Pangasinan.
    Mario positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant.  He knew accused-appellant very
    well, because the latter used to frequent their house to play cards with his father. 
    Accused-appellant's defense was alibi. He claimed that at around 5:00 in the afternoon of
    November 15, 1991, he was in the house of his uncle, Asterio Sonaco, in another barangay of
    Umingan, Pangasinan. He had a round of drinks with four friends over a dish of dog meat. At
    11:00 that night, the party broke up and accused-appellant went home. He claimed that it was
    dark that night and that during the party, they used a lamp for illumination.
    ISSUE:
    WON appellant is guilty of two separate counts of murder and one count of frustrated homicide
    HELD:
    No. The Supreme Court held that accused-appellant was guilty of two counts of murder and one
    count of attempted murder. Under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime is
    committed only when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. As the
    victims in this case were successively shot by accused-appellant with a shotgun, each shot
    necessarily constitutes one act. Accused-appellant should thus be held liable for three separate
    crimes.
    The lower court correctly appreciated treachery as having qualified the killings of Rogelio
    Seldera and Rodolfo Padapat. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an
    unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. But it however erred
    in convicting accused-appellant of frustrated homicide for the injuries inflicted on Mario Seldera.
    It should have appreciated treachery in the attack. Treachery attended the shooting not only of
    Rogelio Seldera and Rodolfo Padapat but also of Mario Seldera. But, with respect to Mario, the
    crime was not frustrated, but only attempted murder. The injuries sustained by Mario were not
    life threatening. Dr. Santos, the attending physician, certified that Mario’s injuries would heal in
    seven days. In fact, he was not confined at the hospital.

    You might also like