0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
96 просмотров5 страниц
The document discusses several cases related to the death of a law student during a fraternity initiation ritual. It summarizes the key issues in each case, including whether the accused were denied due process or the right to a speedy trial. In one case, the criminal charges against a deceased accused were dismissed as criminal liability is extinguished upon death.
The document discusses several cases related to the death of a law student during a fraternity initiation ritual. It summarizes the key issues in each case, including whether the accused were denied due process or the right to a speedy trial. In one case, the criminal charges against a deceased accused were dismissed as criminal liability is extinguished upon death.
The document discusses several cases related to the death of a law student during a fraternity initiation ritual. It summarizes the key issues in each case, including whether the accused were denied due process or the right to a speedy trial. In one case, the criminal charges against a deceased accused were dismissed as criminal liability is extinguished upon death.
RULE 115 Consequently, a criminal case for homicide
VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE (Right to Speedy was filed against 35 Aquilans.
Trial) ISSUES: FACTS: G.R. No. 151258; Villareal v. People: The Several freshmen law students of the instant case refers to accused Villareal’s ADMU School of Law signified their Petition for Review on Certiorari under intention to join the Aquila Legis. Rule 45, raising 2 reversible errors allegedly committed by the CA in its The neophytes include Lenny Villa, The Decision, viz: victim whi was subjected to a 2-day (1) that there was a denial of due initiation rites. However, alumni fraternity process; members Dizon and Villareal demanded (2) that the conviction absent that the rites be reopened. Thus, the proof beyond reasonable doubt. fraternity members, including Dizon and While the Petition was pending Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to before this Court, counsel for "paddling" and to additional rounds of petitioner Villareal filed a Notice physical pain. Lenny received several of Death of Party on 10 August paddle blows, one of which was so strong it 2011. According to the Notice, sent him sprawling to the ground. The petitioner Villareal died on 13 neophytes heard him complaining of March 2011. Counsel thus asserts intense pain and difficulty in breathing. that the subject matter of the After their last session of physical Petition previously filed by beatings, Lenny could no longer walk and petitioner does not survive the had to be carried by to the carport, where death of the accused. they slept after having their dinner. G.R. No. 155101; Dizon v. People: Petitioner After about an hour of sleep, the Dizon sets forth two main issues, viz: neophytes were suddenly roused by Lennys (1), that he was denied due process shivering and incoherent mumblings, which when the CA sustained the trial was initially dismissed by Villareal and courts forfeiture of his right to Dizonas an overreaction. However, upon present evidence; realizing that Lenny was really feeling (2) that he was deprived of due cold, some of the Aquilans started helping process when the CA did not apply him by removing his clothes and putting to him the same "ratio decidendi him in a sleeping bag to keep him warm. that served as basis of acquittal of When his condition worsened, the Aquilans the other accused. rushed him to the hospital. Notwithstanding, Lenny was pronounced G.R. No. 154954; People v. Court of dead on arrival. Appeals: This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the reversal of the CAs Decision, insofar as it acquitted 19 (Victorino et al.) and convicted 4 (Tecson based on a source of obligation other than et al.) of the accused Aquilans of the the delict survives the death of the lesser crime of slight physical injuries. accused and is recoverable through a According to the Solicitor General, the CA separate civil action. erred in holding that there could have been no conspiracy to commit hazing, as Thus, we hold that the death of petitioner hazing or fraternity initiation had not Villareal extinguished his criminal liability yet been criminalized at the time Lenny for both personal and pecuniary penalties, died. including his civil liability directly arising from the delict complained of. G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080; Villa v. Consequently, his Petition is hereby Escalona: Petitioner Villa assails the CAs dismissed, and the criminal case against dismissal of the criminal case involving 4 of him deemed closed and terminated. the 9 accused and argues that the accused failed to assert their right to G.R. No. 155101 (Dizon v. People): The right speedy trial within a reasonable period of the accused to present evidence is of time. She also points out that the guaranteed by no less than the prosecution cannot be faulted for the Constitution itself. delay, as the original records and the required evidence were not at its disposal, Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, but were still in the appellate court. provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be HELD: G.R. No. 151258 Villareal v. heard by himself and counsel" This People: In a Notice dated 26 September constitutional right includes the right to 2011 and while the Petition was pending present evidence in ones defense, as well resolution, this Court took note of counsel as the right to be present and defend for petitioners Notice of Death of Party. oneself in person at every stage of the proceedings. According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability for personal The trial court should not have deemed penalties is totally extinguished by the the failure of petitioner to present death of the convict. In contrast, criminal evidence on 25 August 1993 as a waiver of liability for pecuniary penalties is his right to present evidence. On the extinguished if the offender dies prior to contrary, it should have considered the final judgment. The term "personal excuse of counsel justified, especially penalties" refers to the service of since counsel for another accused General personal or imprisonment penalties, while had made a last-minute adoption of the term "pecuniarypenalties" (las testimonial evidence that freed up the pecuniarias) refers to fines and costs, succeeding trial dates; and since Dizon was including civil liability predicated on the not scheduled to testify until two weeks criminal offense complained of (i.e., civil later. At any rate, the trial court pre- liability ex delicto). However, civil liability assigned five hearing dates for the reception of evidence. If it really wanted court a quo requiring it to secure certified to impose its Order strictly, the most it true copies of the same. What is glaring could have done was to forfeit one out of from the records is the fact that as the five days set for Dizons testimonial early as September 21, 1995, the court evidence. Stripping the accused of all his a quo already issued an Order requiring pre-assigned trial dates constitutes a the prosecution, through the patent denial of the constitutionally Department of Justice, to secure the guaranteed right to due process. complete records of the case from the Court of Appeals. The prosecution did In criminal cases where the imposable not comply with the said Order as in penalty may be death, as in the present fact, the same directive was repeated case, the court is called upon to see to it by the court a quo in an Order dated that the accused is personally made aware December 27, 1995. Still, there was no of the consequences of a waiver of the compliance on the part of the right to present evidence. In fact, it is not prosecution. It is not stated when such enough that the accused is simply warned order was complied with. It appears, of the consequences of another failure to however, that even until August 5, attend the succeeding hearings. The court 2002, the said records were still not at must first explain to the accused the disposal of the trial court because personally in clear terms the exact nature the lack of it was made the basis of the and consequences of a waiver. said court in granting the motion to dismiss filed by co-accused Concepcion. G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080 (Villa v. Escalona): We do not see grave abuse of It is likewise noticeable that from discretion in the CAs dismissal of the case December 27, 1995, until August 5, 2002, against accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, or for a period of almost seven years, and Adriano on the basis of the violation there was no action at all on the part of of their right to speedy trial. the court a quo. Except for the pleadings filed by both the prosecution and the While we are prepared to concede that petitioners, the latest of which was on some of the foregoing factors that January 29, 1996, followed by petitioner contributed to the delay of the trial of Sarucas motion to set case for trial on the petitioners are justifiable, We August 17, 1998 which the court did not nonetheless hold that their right to act upon, the case remained dormant for a speedy trial has been utterly violated in considerable length of time. This this case. prolonged inactivity whatsoever is precisely the kind of delay that the The absence of the records in the trial constitution frowns upon. court [was] due to the fact that the records of the case were elevated to the From the foregoing principles, we affirm Court of Appeals, and the prosecutions the ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. failure to comply with the order of the 89060 that accused Escalona et al.s right to speedy trial was violated. Since excess of jurisdiction on the part of any there is nothing in the records that branch or instrumentality of the would show that the subject of this government. Petition includes accused Ampil, S. Fernandez, Cabangon, and De Vera, the Indeed, we have ruled in a line of cases effects of this ruling shall be limited to that the rule on double jeopardy similarly accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and applies when the state seeks the Adriano. imposition of a higher penalty against the accused. We have also recognized, G.R. No. 154954 (People v. Court of however, that certiorari may be used to Appeals): The rule on double jeopardy thus correct an abusive judgment upon a clear prohibits the state from appealing the demonstration that the lower court judgment in order to reverse the acquittal blatantly abused its authority to a point so or to increase the penalty imposed either grave as to deprive it of its very power to through a regular appeal under Rule 41 of dispense justice. The present case is one the Rules of Court or through an appeal by of those instances of grave abuse of certiorari on pure questions of law under discretion. Rule 45 of the same Rules. The appellate court relied on our ruling in As we have reiterated in People v. Court of People v. Penesa in finding that the four Appeals and Galicia, a verdict of acquittal accused should be held guilty only of slight is immediately final and a reexamination of physical injuries. According to the CA, the merits of such acquittal, even in the because of "the death of the victim, there appellate courts, will put the accused in can be no precise means to determine the jeopardy for the same offense. duration of the incapacity or medical attendance required. The reliance on This prohibition, however, is not absolute. Penesa was utterly misplaced. The state may challenge the lower courts acquittal of the accused or the imposition On the contrary, the CAs ultimate of a lower penalty on the latter in the conclusion that Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and following recognized exceptions: (1) where Bantug were liable merely for slight the prosecution is deprived of a fair physical injuries grossly contradicts its opportunity to prosecute and prove its own findings of fact. According to the case, tantamount to a deprivation of due court, the four accused "were found to process; (2) where there is a finding of have inflicted more than the usual mistrial; or (3) where there has been a punishment undertaken during such grave abuse of discretion. initiation rites on the person of Villa. It then adopted the NBI medico-legal The third instance refers to this Courts officers findings that the antecedent judicial power under Rule 65 to determine cause of Lenny Villas death was the whether or not there has been a grave "multiple traumatic injuries" he suffered abuse of discretion amounting to lack or from the initiation rites. Considering that the CA found that the "physical we therefore give due course to the punishment heaped on Lenny Villa was Petition. serious in nature, it was patently erroneous for the court to limit the criminal liability to slight physical injuries, which is a light felony.
Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code
dictates that the perpetrator shall be liable for the consequences of an act, even if its result is different from that intended. Thus, once a person is found to have committed an initial felonious act, such as the unlawful infliction of physical injuries that results in the death of the victim, courts are required to automatically apply the legal framework governing the destruction of life. This rule is mandatory, and not subject to discretion.
Attributing criminal liability solely to
Villareal and Dizon as if only their acts, in and of themselves, caused the death of Lenny Villa is contrary to the CAs own findings. From proof that the death of the victim was the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries he suffered, the only logical conclusion is that criminal responsibility should redound to all those who have been proven to have directly participated in the infliction of physical injuries on Lenny. The accumulation of bruising on his body caused him to suffer cardiac arrest. Accordingly, we find that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug criminally liable for slight physical injuries. As an allowable exception to the rule on double jeopardy,