Iupreme (Ourt: L/epublit of Tbe Bilippinei

l\epublit of tbe ~bilippinei
iupreme (ourt
fflanila
SECOND DIVISION
EDUARDO LACSON y G.R. No. 243805

MANALO,
Petitioner, Present:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J ,
Chairperson,
- versus - HERNANDO,
INTING,
DELOS SANTOS, and
BALTAZAR-PADILLA,* JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:

PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
DECISION
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
The Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Decision2

dated 12 September 2018 and the Resolution3 dated 18 December 2018 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40456, finding petitioner
Eduardo Lacson y Manalo (Eduardo) guilty of the crime of Less Serious
Physical Injuries under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
On leave.
1
Rollo, pp. 13-33.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles
and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring; id . at 38-49.
3
Id . at 5 1-52.
/
Decision 2 G.R. No. 243805
The Facts
The case stemmed from six (6) separate Amended Informations for
Attempted Homicide filed on 11 May 2011 by the Office of the City
Prosecutor, City of San Fernando, Pampanga with the Municipal Trial Court
in Ci ties (MTCC) of the City of San F emando, Pampanga, Branch 1, against
Eduardo, together with his co-accused Hernani M . Lacson (Hernani), Elizer
M. Lacson (Elizer), Deborah Samson-Lacson (Deborah), Adonis M. Lacson
(Adonis), and Erwin M. Lacson (Erwin; collectively, Lacsons).
The Amended Informations,4 with the exception of the names of the

victims, are similarly worded, which state:
Criminal Case No. 11-0287
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2011 , in the City of San
Fernando, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, and use
personal violence upon one Gary Santos y Mallari, by then and there
hitting the latter on different parts of his body, using steel pipe, inflicting
physical injuries upon said Gary Santos y Mallari, in an attempt to end the
latter's life, thereby commencing the commission of the offen[s]e of
homicide directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of
execution which would produce the crime of homicide by reason (sic)
causes or acts other than the accused's own spontaneous desistance, that is,
by the timely intervention of some well meaning citizens.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2011, in the City of San
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused · conspiring,
personal violence upon one Rudy Santos y Lumba, by then and there
physical injuries upon said Rudy Santos y Lumba, in an attempt to end the
latter's life, thereby commencing the commission of the offen[s]e of
causes or acts other than the accused's own spontaneous desistance, that
is, by the timely intervention of some well meaning citizens.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
4
Id. at 84-86.

personal violence upon one Richard Santos y Mallari, by then and there
physical injuries upon said Richard Santos y Mallari, in an attempt to end
the latter's life, thereby commencing the commission of the offen[s]e of
CONTRARY TO LAW.
personal violence upon one Romeo Santos y Lumba, by then and there
physical injuries upon said Romeo Santos y Lwnba, in an attempt to end
the latter 's life, thereby commencing the commission of the offen[s]e of
homicide directly by overt act~, but did not perform all the acts of
CONTRARY TO LAW.
personal violence upon one Albert Santos y Mallari, by then and there
physical injuries upon said Albert Santos y Mallari, in an attempt to end
the latter 's life, thereby commencing the commission of the offen[s]e of
CONTRARY TO LAW.
r
personal violence upon one Rommel Santos y Mallari, by then and there
physical injuries upon said Rommel Santos y Mallari, in an attempt to end
the latter's life, thereby commencing the commission of the offen[s]e of
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, the Lacsons all pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial
on the merits ensued. 5
The prosecution presented six witnesses: (1) Rommel M. Santos

(Rommel); (2) Gary M. Santos (Gary); (3) Richard M. Santos (Richard); (4)
Rowena L. Santos-Cunanan (Rowena); (5) Romeo L. Santos (Romeo); and
(6) Dr. Duane P. Cordero (Dr. Cordero). 6
The prosecution summarized their version of the facts as follows:
On 5 May 2011, at around 9:00 P.M., Gary, Arnold Santos (Arnold),

Eliza Santos (Eliza), and Joyce Ann Santos (Joyce Ann) arrived in their
house at Sitio Boulevard, Barangay San Agustin, City of San Fernando,
Pampanga. The group told Romeo, Rommel, Richard, and Albert Santos
(Albert; collectively, Santoses) that they were being chased and stoned by
the Lacsons.7
Arnold then left but while he was running towards the Lacsons' house,
the group followed and tried to pacify him, but they failed. Upon reaching
the Lacsons' house, Arnold had a heated discussion with Hemani and Elizer.
Moments later, Rudy Santos (Rudy), who resides at the back of the Lacsons'
house, arrived. 8
Deborah, Hemani 's wife, brought out a steel pipe out of their house
and told Hemani "Oyni ing tubo pamalwan mu la!" (Here is a steel pipe, hit
them). Eduardo responded by hitting Arnold's head with a steel pipe. The
Santoses wanted to help Arnold who fell on the ground but the Lacsons
likewise attacked them using steel pipes. As a result, Rommel, Gary,
Richard, and Romeo sustained injuries on their heads and different parts of
their bodies. 9
5
Id. at 176.
6
Id. at 90.
7
Id. at 39.
Id.
9
Id. at 40.
----- --
When the barangay patrol arrived, Richard, Rommel, Romeo, and

Gary, together with Albert and Rudy, were brought to Jose B. Lingad
Memorial General Hospital, where they were treated by Dr. Cordero, the
resident physician on duty at the Department of Surgery. 10
Later on, Arnold died. A separate criminal case for Attempted

Homicide was filed against Eduardo. 11
Dr. Cordero cited mauling as the cause of the injuries and issued the
Santoses' respective Medical Certificates summarized as follows: 12
Name Injuries Suffered Periods of Healing

Richard Cerebral concussion with lacerated Barring complication, the
wound; eyebrow, right, lacerated injuries will require a period
wound; occipital area secondary to more than 30 days of healing
mauling
Rommel Lacerated wound on parietal area; Barring complication, the
periorbital edema secondary to mauling; injuries will require a period of
hemorrhage, left frontal, ethmoid and 2 weeks of healing
maxillary sinuses
Romeo Lacerated wound on temporal, auricular, Barring complication, the
and parietal areas, secondary to injuries will require a period of
mauling; complete, displaced fracture, 6-8 weeks of healing
middle third of the left ulna, radiopaque
foreign bodies, middle third of the right
forearm
Gary Contusion hematoma on the parietal Barring complication, the
area, left; complete, non-displace injuries will require a period of
fracture involving the distal third of the more than 30 days of healing
right radius; the right wrist joint space is
narrowed; the left hand and left foot are
unremarkab Ie
Prosecution evidence also showed that Rudy and Albert sustained

injuries requiring a period of two (2) weeks of healing. However, while
Rudy and Albert submitted their respective judicial affidavits, they were not
presented to testify and affirm the same. Thus, the Lacsons were not given
13
the opportunity to confront them.
On the other hand, Adonis and Erwin were not arrested. Thus, the
14
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons.
io Id.
11
ld. at41.
12
Id. at 73.
13
Id. at 98-99.
14
Id. at 99.
After the presentation of the prosecution's testimonial evidence and

the subsequent formal offer of its documentary evidence, the defense failed
to present any witness. The MTCC declared the Lacsons' right to present
evidence as waived. Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for
decision. 15
In a Joint Decision 16 dated 18 February 2016, the MTCC found the

Lacsons guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of the crime of Attempted
Homicide as charged, but of Less Serious Physical Injuries under Article 265
of the RPC. The MTCC declared that intent to kill, an essential element of
Attempted Homicide, was not clearly and convincingly proved by the
prosecution. Absent such intent _to kill, the offender would be liable for
physical injuries only. The MTCC stated that the evidence showed that the
alleged mauling started when Arnold, followed by Gary and the rest of the
Santoses, went to accost Hemani and Elizer in front of the Lacsons' house.
With the number of the Santoses and the Lacsons and their sudden
engagement in the brawl, the MTCC held that the infliction of the injuries
was indiscriminately done and not deliberately aimed at specific portions of
the victims' bodies. Thus, the MTCC declared that the prosecution was able
to prove conspiracy but failed to prove the element of intent to kill which
downgraded the crime committed. 17 The dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO.11-0287
Accused Hemani Lacson y Manansala, Eduardo Lacson y Manalo,

Elizer Lacson y Manansala and Deborah Samson-Lacson are hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Less Serious Physical
Injuries defined and penalized under Article 265 of the Revised Penal
Code and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period.

Elizer Lacson y Manansala and Deborah Samson-Lacson are
ACQUITTED of the charge of Attempted Homicide due to insufficiency
of evidence.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0289

maximum period.
15
Id. at 96.
16
Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Lourdes F. Tolentino; id. at 81 -1 00.
17
Id. at 97-99.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0290

maximum period.

Elizer Lacson y Manansala and Deborah Samson-Lacson are
ACQUITTED of the charge of Attempted Homicide due to insufficiency
of evidence.

maximum period.
In addition, the accused are hereby ordered to jointly and severally

pay the private complainants actual damages in the amount of Pesos
Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three (PhP1 3,363.00) Philippine
Currency for hospital expenses and Pesos Fifty Thousand (PhP50,000.00)
Philippine Currency for legal expenses incurred.
so ORDERED. 18
Eduardo filed an Appeal, 19 in Criminal Cases Nos. 11-0287, 11-0289,

11-0290, and 11-0292, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of
San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 44, docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
22292 to 22295.
r-_ - -
Ruling of the RTC '

In a Joint Decision20 dated 30 January 2017, the RTC affirmed in toto
the Decision of the MTCC. The dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joint Decision of the

MTCC, Br. I of City of San Fernando, Pampanga dated February 18, 2016,
in Criminal Case Nos. 11-0287, 11-0289, 11-0290, and 11-0292, finding
accused appellant Eduardo Lacson y Manalo guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes of less serious physical injuries is AFFIRMED en toto.
18
Id. at 44-45.
19
Id. at 101-102.
20
Penned by Presiding Judge Esperanza S. Paglinawan-Rozario; id. at 7 1-76.
SO ORDERED.2 1
22
Eduardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the
RTC in a Joint Order23 dated 14 September 2017 for lack of merit.
Eduardo filed a Petition for Review24 with the CA.
Ruling of the CA
25
In a Decision dated 12 September 2018, the CA dismissed the
petition and affirmed in toto the findings of the RTC. The dispositive
portion states:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The

appealed January 30, 2017 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
San Fernando City, Pampanga, Branch 44, in Criminal Case Nos. M-
22292-95, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.26
Eduardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration27 which was denied in a

Resolution28 dated 18 December 2018.
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
Whether or not the CA erred in finding Eduardo guilty of the crime of

Less Serious Physical Injuries despite that (1) his participation in inflicting
any injury to any of private complainants was never established, and (2)
conspiracy was not proven.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Eduardo contends that the brawl should be considered as a tumultuous

affray under Article 252 of the RPC and that Article 265 of the RPC 1s
21
Id. at 76.
22
ld. at ll 5-11 7.
23
Id. at 77-80 .
24
Id. at 53-70.
25
Id. at 38-49.
26
Id. at 48-49.
27
Id. at 152- 160.
28
Id. at 5 1-52.
inapplicable. Eduardo avers that even if tumultuous affray is found to have

occurred, he could not be held liable since in Article 252, the person who
used v iolence must be identified, but no such evidence was adduced against
him. Also, Eduardo argues that conspiracy in this case was not proven.
Article 252 29 of the RPC states:
ART. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. -

When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article, only
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the
person responsible thereof cannot be identified, all those who appear to
have used violence upon the person of the offended party shall suffer the
penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the physical injuries so
inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and
the person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those who appear
to have used any violence upon the person of the offended party shall be
punished by arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.
In Wacoy v. People,30 We held that a tumultuous affray takes place

when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they engage in a
confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed
or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. 3 1
In the present case, the dispute was between two distinct groups of
individuals - the Santoses and the Lacsons. The records provide that the
Santoses, namely Gary, Arnold, Eliza, and Joyce Ann were chased and
stoned by some members of the Lacson family. Upon reaching their house,
they told the rest of the Santos family, namely Romeo, Rommel, Richard,
and Albert what happened. Arnold then ran ahead to the Lacsons' house and
had a heated discussion with Hemani and Elizer. Eduardo, armed with a
steel pipe given by Deborah, hit Arnold on the head and proceeded to hit the
other members of the Santos family. The Lacsons, who by then had more
steel pipes at their disposal, attacked the Santoses, who were not able to fight
back and defend themselves. Clearly, this was a definite attack on the
Santoses by the Lacsons, an identified group, and not a case of tumultuous
affray where the assault occmTed in a confused and disorganized manner,
resulting in death or injuries of the ones involved, and the person responsible
29
Read in conjunction with Article 25 1 of the RPC, which states:
ART. 251 . Death caused in a tumultuous affi·ay. - When, while several persons, not composing
groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other rec iprocall y, quarrel
and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is
killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who
inflicted serious physical injuries can be ident ified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision
mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the pena lty
of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods sha ll be imposed upon all those who shall
have used violence upon the person of the victim.
30
76 I Phil. 570(201 5).
31
Id. at 578; citing Sison v. People, 320 Phil. 11 2, I 34 ( I995).
could not be determined. Here, Eduardo was sufficiently identified as the

person who first hit Arnold on the head using a steel pipe then continued on
to inflict injuries to the other members of the Santos family, with the help of
the Lacsons.
Thus, We agree with the appellate and trial courts that Eduardo is
guilty of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries under Article 265 of the
RPC, which states:
ART. 265. Less serious physical injuries . - Any person who shall
inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding
articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten
days or more, or shall require medical assistance for the same period, shall
be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor.
The law is clear that to be held liable for the crime of Less Serious
Physical Injuries, the offender must have inflicted physical injuries to the
offended party, and that the inflicted injuries incapacitated the offended party
for labor or would require him medical assistance for ten (10) days or more.
In this case, the prosecution established that the injuries suffered by

the victims required varying periods of healing from two (2) weeks to eight
(8) weeks. Dr. Cordero, the attending physician, testified and gave a detailed
description of the injuries that they suffered and the accompanying amount
of time they needed to rest and heal from such injuries.
In the similar case of Mupas v. People,32 where the Information

charged petitioners with Frustrated Homicide, we ruled upon a finding of
guilt for the lesser offense of Less Serious Physical Injuries. We held that
when intent to kill is lacking but wounds were inflicted on the victim, the
crime is not frustrated homicide but less serious physical injuries,
considering that ( 1) the latter offense is necessarily included in the former,
and since the essential ingredients of physical injuries constitute and form
part of those constituting the offense of homicide; and (2) the attending
physician's opinion that the wounds sustained by the victim would take two
(2) weeks to heal. The penalty imposed was imprisonment of four (4)
months and ten (10) days of arresto mayor in its maximum period. In some
other cases33 where we upheld Article 265 of the RPC, we imposed the
penalty of imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4)
months of arresto mayor in the medium period.
Here, since the Santoses suffered physical injuries incapacitating them

for a longer time of two (2) weeks to eight (8) weeks, the duration of the
32
568 Phil. 78 (2008).
33
Pentecosles, Jr. v. People, 631 Phil. 500 (20 IO); Siton v. Court of Appeals, 28 1 Phil. 536 ( 199 1).
penalty of arresto mayor is for the maximum period of six (6) months.
With regard to the allegation that conspiracy was not proven, We

agree with the appellate and trial courts that conspiracy was adequately
shown. Article 8 of the RPC states:
ART. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - xx x
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Direct proof is not required to prove conspiracy. In a number of

34
cases, the Court ruled that conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial
evidence. It may be established through the collective acts of the accused
before, during and after the commission of a felony, all the accused aimed at
the same object, one perfonning one part and the other perfonning another
for the attainment of the same objective; and that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating
closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of
· 35
sentiments.
Here, the Lacsons were convincingly presented to have acted in

unison in attacking the Santoses with steel pipes. The conduct of the
Lacsons, before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showed that
they possessed a joint and concerted purpose to assault the Santoses after
chasing, hurling a beer bottle at them, and witnessing the heated discussion
between some of their family members and Arnold, which escalated to a
full-on attack. The Santoses had no means of defense, lacking the strength
in numbers of the Lacsons who possessed steel pipes as weapons which
caused injuries to their heads and different parts of their bodies. Thus, the
act of one becomes the act of all and the Lacsons must be held accountable
for their actions.
In sum, We affirm the conviction of Eduardo for the crime of Less

Serious Physical Injuries in Criminal Case Nos. 22292 to 22295 and he is
sentenced to suffer the straight penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of
arresto mayor for each count, and ordered to pay the victims, jointly and
severally with other co-accused, the amounts of Pl3,363.00 as actual
damages for hospital expenses, and P50,000.00 as legal expenses. Also, to
conform with prevailing jurisprudence,36 We award moral damages in the
amount of PS ,000.00 for each count.
34
People v. Bohol, 594 Phil. 2 19 (2008); People v. Agudez, 4 72 Phil. 76 1 (2004); People v. Caballero,
448 Phil. 5 14 (2003); People v. S a/aria, 12 1 Phil. 1257 ( I965).
35
People v. Agude=, id.
36
See Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 246992, 14 August 20 19.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 12

September 2018 and the Resolution dated 18 December 2018 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40456 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Eduardo
Lacson y Manalo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four (4)
counts of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries, defined and penalized
under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is sentenced to suffer
the straight penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor for
each count, and ordered to pay the victims jointly and severally with his co-
accused: (1) actual damages of Pl3 ,363.00 for hospital expenses; (2) legal
expenses of PS0,000.00; and (3) moral damages of PS,000.00 for each count,
with legal interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) interest per annum, from
the date of finality of this Decision until full payment for each count.
SO ORDERED.
~
EDGARDO L. DELOS SANTOS
Associate Justices
WE CONCUR:
JJ.0 M/
ESTELA M:v~ERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
HE
(On Leave)
PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
AAO,'A.#
ESTELA 1vf RERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
DIOSDADO
Chief

Iupreme (Ourt: L/epublit of Tbe Bilippinei

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iupreme (Ourt: L/epublit of Tbe Bilippinei

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iupreme (Ourt: L/epublit of Tbe Bilippinei

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

l\epublit of tbe ~bilippinei

EDUARDO LACSON y G.R. No. 243805

PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:

DELOS SANTOS, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Decision2

The Amended Informations,4 with the exception of the names of the

Criminal Case No. 11-0287

Criminal Case No. 11-0288

Criminal Case No. 11-0289

Fernando, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction

Criminal Case No. 11-0290

Criminal Case No. 11-0291

Criminal Case No. 11-0292

The prosecution presented six witnesses: (1) Rommel M. Santos

The prosecution summarized their version of the facts as follows:

On 5 May 2011, at around 9:00 P.M., Gary, Arnold Santos (Arnold),

When the barangay patrol arrived, Richard, Rommel, Romeo, and

Later on, Arnold died. A separate criminal case for Attempted

Name Injuries Suffered Periods of Healing

Prosecution evidence also showed that Rudy and Albert sustained

After the presentation of the prosecution's testimonial evidence and

In a Joint Decision 16 dated 18 February 2016, the MTCC found the

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO.11-0287

Accused Hemani Lacson y Manansala, Eduardo Lacson y Manalo,

CRIMINAL CASE NO.11-0288

Accused Hemani Lacson y Manansala, Eduardo Lacson y Manalo,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0289

Accused Hemani Lacson y Manansala, Eduardo Lacson y Manalo,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-0290

Accused Hemani Lacson y Manansala, Eduardo Lacson y Manalo,

CRIMINAL CASE NO.11-0291

Accused Hemani Lacson y Manansala, Eduardo Lacson y Manalo,

CRIMINAL CASE NO.11-0292

Accused Hemani Lacson y Manansala, Eduardo Lacson y Manalo,

In addition, the accused are hereby ordered to jointly and severally

Eduardo filed an Appeal, 19 in Criminal Cases Nos. 11-0287, 11-0289,

Ruling of the RTC '

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joint Decision of the

Eduardo filed a Petition for Review24 with the CA.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The

Eduardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration27 which was denied in a

Hence, this petition.

Whether or not the CA erred in finding Eduardo guilty of the crime of

The Court's Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

Eduardo contends that the brawl should be considered as a tumultuous

inapplicable. Eduardo avers that even if tumultuous affray is found to have

Article 252 29 of the RPC states:

ART. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. -

In Wacoy v. People,30 We held that a tumultuous affray takes place

could not be determined. Here, Eduardo was sufficiently identified as the

In this case, the prosecution established that the injuries suffered by

In the similar case of Mupas v. People,32 where the Information

Here, since the Santoses suffered physical injuries incapacitating them

With regard to the allegation that conspiracy was not proven, We

ART. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - xx x

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an