Case Digest - focusing on Admissibility of DNA evidence in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.Full description
People vs AmaguinFull description
John Dy vs PeopleFull description
People v Acierto case digestFull description
People Yatar EvidenceFull description
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE) VS. DOMINGO URAL (ACCUSED-APPELLANT) L-30801 MARCH 27 1974 J. AQUINO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE
CFI OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR
FACTS: -
-
-
Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a policeman inside the jail where he was boxing prisoner Napola (who was imprisoned for being drunk). When Napola fell to the ground he U kicked him and poured some liquid on N and then ignited N’s body. nd Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he sustained 2 degree burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face and one half of the body including the back. She also testified that without any medical intervention, the burns would have caused death Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated burn as the cause o f death. During the trial, the prosecutors failed to pre sent the detention prisoners who saw the burning of Napola as witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay for costs
ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held: TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder. -
-
-
Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he hear d a scream for help from Napola whose shirt was in flames when found by him, he removed the shirt, but did not summon the doctor because he thought that the burns were not serious. o SC: this statement cannot prevail over the testimony of Alberio o This statement does not prove that he was not the one who burned Napola, at most this could only mean that he was alarmed by the consequences of his e vil act Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying that he was not listed as a prosecution witness and that he was convicted of murder in the past o Wouldn’t preclude him from being a credible witness. o Since there was no police investigation (accused a police officer), the investigation that ensued was done by a special counsel of the fiscal’s office. A possible explanation of alberio not being listed at first. o The statements of the witnesses for t he defense were not inconsistent with that of Alberio’s. Therefore, there is no reason to not not believe in Alberio’s testimony. testimony. The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater than what was intended). o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1). o TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed” No intent to kill but only to maltreat t he drunk napola who might have been making a nuisance of himself He realized the fearful consequence of his felonious act, he allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary
-
Since the mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance, TC correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for murder.
