People vs Loreno digest for Criminal LawFull description
People vs Loreno CASE DIGEST CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE 12
Full description
People v. Pugay Case Digest
Criminal Procedure Rule 126Full description
digestFull description
People v. Badilla (G.R. No. 218578) - August 31, 2016 Chain of Custody rule - Section 21 of RA 9165.
Full description
Lumauig v. People - G.R. No. 166680 (July 7, 2014) Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code - Failure of Accountable Officer to Render AccountsFull description
people vs durango case digestFull description
digestFull description
CrimPro digestFull description
consti2Full description
Constitutional law 2 Rights of the accusedFull description
Digest in Crim 2
Constitutional Law Bill of RightsFull description
Full description
crim rev
sFull description
CrimProFull description
case digestFull description
PEOPLE V. MENDOZA
G.R. No. 137405Full description
People v. Loreno 130 SCRA 311 FACTS: On night of January 7, 1970 in Limbanan,Ilocos Sur, eight men armed with firearms, six of whom were NPAs,robbed the house of Elias Monge. A man in black sweater raped Eliass daughters, Cristina and Monica. Loreno was armed with short firearm; Marantal served as lookout. They were able to get P 10,619.50 worth of properties.
Loreno and Marantal pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. ISSUES : Whether or not Loreno and M arantal should be acquitted of committing robbery with double rape due to exempting circumstance of irresistible force HELD : The decision is affirmed. The accused are guilty of crime of robbery with double rape, in conspiracy, attended by the aggravating circumstances of band, nighttime and dwelling. The accused s hould suffer penalty of reclusion perpetua. RATIO: Appellants claim of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force is inconsistent with the established facts that demonstrated voluntary participation participation and conspiracy.
As a general rule, person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. However, the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. In this case, the facts show that t he appellantscontention that they were threatened by the six N PAs is untenable.