Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 161 views

    People v. Amit

    Uploaded by

    ABbo Hernandez
    Amit was convicted of raping and killing a woman. He pleaded for a reduced sentence due to lack of intent to commit such a grave crime. However, the court ruled that this mitigating circumstance did not apply to Amit because he used brute force against the victim by choking and boxing her when she resisted him. The court affirmed the penalty of death, as it is an indivisible penalty for the crime of rape with homicide according to Philippine law.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Amit

    Uploaded by

    ABbo Hernandez
    161 views2 pages
    Amit was convicted of raping and killing a woman. He pleaded for a reduced sentence due to lack of intent to commit such a grave crime. However, the court ruled that this mitigating circumstance did not apply to Amit because he used brute force against the victim by choking and boxing her when she resisted him. The court affirmed the penalty of death, as it is an indivisible penalty for the crime of rape with homicide according to Philippine law.

    Original Title

    094. People v. Amit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Amit was convicted of raping and killing a woman. He pleaded for a reduced sentence due to lack of intent to commit such a grave crime. However, the court ruled that this mitigating circumstance did not apply to Amit because he used brute force against the victim by choking and boxing her when she resisted him. The court affirmed the penalty of death, as it is an indivisible penalty for the crime of rape with homicide according to Philippine law.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Amit

    Uploaded by

    ABbo Hernandez
    Amit was convicted of raping and killing a woman. He pleaded for a reduced sentence due to lack of intent to commit such a grave crime. However, the court ruled that this mitigating circumstance did not apply to Amit because he used brute force against the victim by choking and boxing her when she resisted him. The court affirmed the penalty of death, as it is an indivisible penalty for the crime of rape with homicide according to Philippine law.

    Copyright:

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

    094. PEOPLE v.

    AMIT
    G.R. No. L-29066 | March 25, 1970 | En Banc | Appeal
    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
    MARCELO AMIT, defendant-appellant.
    PER CURIAM
    Digest by Dawn Chua

    Short Version:
    Amit choked and boxed his victim when she resisted him raping
    her.

    As a result she died. He pleads the mitigating circumstance of


    lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually
    committed. Court ruled that the lack of intention to commit so
    grave a wrong as that committed cannot be appreciated in favor of
    an accused who employed brute force

    Facts:
    - Amit was convicted of the complex crime of rape with
    homicide.
    - On automatic appeal the SC, Amit submits that while he does
    not question the correctness of the decision of the lower
    Court, the penalty of death should be reduced to reclusion
    perpetua in view of the presence of 3 mitigating
    circumstances: (1) plea of guilty; (2) voluntary surrender,
    and (3) lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as the
    one actually committed.
    - The SolGen admits that the mitigating circumstances of plea
    of guilty and voluntary surrender have been proven, but
    denies that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention
    to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed was
    similarly established.
    - Based on his extrajudicial confession, what happened while
    Amit was committing the felony was as follows:
    o When he made the victim Rufina Arellano lay down on her
    back, she resisted by biting him below the shoulder and
    scratching him on his breast.
    o In retaliation, Amit held her on the neck with his left
    hand while simultaneously boxing her left cheek with
    his right hand.

    Issue:
    WON the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so
    grave a wrong as the one actually committed should be appreciated
    in view of Amit’s choking and boxing the victim when she resisted
    him. NO
    Dispositive:
    Judgment appealed from affirmed

    Reasoning:
    - NO
    - The Court cited the ruling in People v. Yu:
    o The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as
    that committed cannot be appreciated in favor of an
    accused who employed brute force… intention being
    gathered from and determined only by the conduct and
    external acts of the offender, and the results of the
    acts themselves.

    On penalty:
    The penalty of Death prescribed in the last paragraph of Article
    335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos.
    2632 and 4111 being an indivisible penalty, it has to be imposed
    regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstances,
    especially in a case like the present where, according to the
    evidence of record, the crime was committed with the aggravating
    circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength (first
    paragraph, Article 63, Revised Penal Code)
    Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
    Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

    You might also like