Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    People V Rodas

    Uploaded by

    Karren Quilang
    1) On August 9, 1996, Charlito Rodas stabbed Titing Asenda in the back with a hunting knife at a benefit dance being held at 8PM. Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako. Jose Rodas, Jr. then hacked Titing with a bolo. 2) The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax lamp, allowing witnesses to identify all the accused, so nocturnity was not present. Conspiracy was proved by the accused acting in unison to assault the victim. 3) Treachery was present as the victim was unaware of the attack and unable to defend himself. Evident premeditation and the

    Copyright:

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

    People V Rodas

    Uploaded by

    Karren Quilang
    116 views2 pages
    1) On August 9, 1996, Charlito Rodas stabbed Titing Asenda in the back with a hunting knife at a benefit dance being held at 8PM. Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako. Jose Rodas, Jr. then hacked Titing with a bolo. 2) The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax lamp, allowing witnesses to identify all the accused, so nocturnity was not present. Conspiracy was proved by the accused acting in unison to assault the victim. 3) Treachery was present as the victim was unaware of the attack and unable to defend himself. Evident premeditation and the

    Original Description:

    ESCRA

    Original Title

    People v Rodas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) On August 9, 1996, Charlito Rodas stabbed Titing Asenda in the back with a hunting knife at a benefit dance being held at 8PM. Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako. Jose Rodas, Jr. then hacked Titing with a bolo. 2) The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax lamp, allowing witnesses to identify all the accused, so nocturnity was not present. Conspiracy was proved by the accused acting in unison to assault the victim. 3) Treachery was present as the victim was unaware of the attack and unable to defend himself. Evident premeditation and the

    Copyright:

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

    People V Rodas

    Uploaded by

    Karren Quilang
    1) On August 9, 1996, Charlito Rodas stabbed Titing Asenda in the back with a hunting knife at a benefit dance being held at 8PM. Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako. Jose Rodas, Jr. then hacked Titing with a bolo. 2) The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax lamp, allowing witnesses to identify all the accused, so nocturnity was not present. Conspiracy was proved by the accused acting in unison to assault the victim. 3) Treachery was present as the victim was unaware of the attack and unable to defend himself. Evident premeditation and the

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE V RODAS

    Key Word: Benefit Dance


    Topic: Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or by a Band
    FACTS:
    1) On 09 August 1996, accused, armed with a hunting knife, firearm, chako and bolo, stabbed TITING
    ASENDA.
    2) Accused entered their plea of NOT GUILTY but later withdrew and entered their respective PLEAS OF
    GUILTY.
    3) TITING helped his brother harvest corn. At 8PM, a benefit dance was held. Victim and the accused were
    present. Suddenly, without a word, Charlito Rodas, armed with a hunting knife, stabbed Titing at the back.
    Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako hitting him at the left side of the nape causing him to fall.
    Thereafter, Jose Rodas, Sr. handed to Jose Rodas, Jr. a bolo which the latter used in hacking Titing, hitting
    him on the left elbow.
    4) Defense: Charlito and Jose killed Titing. Appellant Jose Rodas said he was in his
    home with his wife.
    5) They insist that Asonda and Anggot could not have seen the killing because only a Petromax lighted the
    place.
    6) During the incident, they claimed that they were 1km away.
    Ruling of CA: Affirmed in toto
    RTC decision convicting accused-appellants
    Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr. of the crime of Murder; for the death of one Titing Asenda
    Sentencing them to reclusion perpetua

    ACs: Teachery, Nocturnity, Evident Premeditation


    Issue: WON the RTC erred in appreciating the AC of NIGHTTIME
    Assignment of error:
    Assuming arguendo that the accused are guilty, they are only liable for the crime of homicide
    HELD: Yes.
    Sentence: Reclusion perpetua (there being no MC and AC)
    1) [ON NIGHTTIME] Not Present. Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not
    become a modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the
    offender's immunity from identification to capture. The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax
    which led to the identification of all the accused.

    2) [ON CONSPIRACY] Present. In this case, conspiracy was convincingly proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    All the accused had the same purpose and acted in unison when they assaulted the victim. (refer to #3 of
    the facts)

    3) [ON EVIDENT PREMEDITATION] Not proved.

    4) [ON TREACHERY] Present. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
    victim to defend himself or to retaliate. In the case under review, the victim was completely unaware that
    he was going to be attacked.

    5) [ABSENCE OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION] A medical examination or a medical certificate is not


    indispensable in the case at bar. Its absence will not prove that appellants did not commit the crime
    charged.

    6) Defense witnesses’ testimonies as to their whereabouts were inconsistent.


    OTHER PERTINENT PRINCIPLES
    1) For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two elements: (1) he
    was not at the locus criminis at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible
    for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 30 Appellants failed to do so.

    2) For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established:


    (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime;
    (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and
    (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the
    consequences of his act.

    You might also like