Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Case Digest People vs. Amigo

    Uploaded by

    Aries Santos
    The defendant Patricio Amigo was found guilty of murdering Benito Ng Suy in 1989 in Davao City. He stabbed the victim multiple times, inflicting injuries to his arm, chest, abdomen, thigh, and internal organs. The trial court sentenced Amigo to reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Amigo appealed, arguing that capital punishment was prohibited when the offense was committed. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling, stating that reclusion perpetua remained the applicable penalty for murder in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution banning the death penalty. The Court has no authority to modify penalties determined by the legislature. Sympathy cannot be grounds for overturning

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest People vs. Amigo

    Uploaded by

    Aries Santos
    5 views2 pages
    The defendant Patricio Amigo was found guilty of murdering Benito Ng Suy in 1989 in Davao City. He stabbed the victim multiple times, inflicting injuries to his arm, chest, abdomen, thigh, and internal organs. The trial court sentenced Amigo to reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Amigo appealed, arguing that capital punishment was prohibited when the offense was committed. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling, stating that reclusion perpetua remained the applicable penalty for murder in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution banning the death penalty. The Court has no authority to modify penalties determined by the legislature. Sympathy cannot be grounds for overturning

    Original Title

    Case Digest People vs. Amigo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant Patricio Amigo was found guilty of murdering Benito Ng Suy in 1989 in Davao City. He stabbed the victim multiple times, inflicting injuries to his arm, chest, abdomen, thigh, and internal organs. The trial court sentenced Amigo to reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Amigo appealed, arguing that capital punishment was prohibited when the offense was committed. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling, stating that reclusion perpetua remained the applicable penalty for murder in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution banning the death penalty. The Court has no authority to modify penalties determined by the legislature. Sympathy cannot be grounds for overturning

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest People vs. Amigo

    Uploaded by

    Aries Santos
    The defendant Patricio Amigo was found guilty of murdering Benito Ng Suy in 1989 in Davao City. He stabbed the victim multiple times, inflicting injuries to his arm, chest, abdomen, thigh, and internal organs. The trial court sentenced Amigo to reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Amigo appealed, arguing that capital punishment was prohibited when the offense was committed. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling, stating that reclusion perpetua remained the applicable penalty for murder in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution banning the death penalty. The Court has no authority to modify penalties determined by the legislature. Sympathy cannot be grounds for overturning

    Copyright:

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

    Title:

    People of the Philippines vs. Patricio Amigo alias Bebot G.R. No.116719, 1-18-1996
    Facts:
    The undersigned the above-named accused of the crime of FRUSTRATED MURDER, under Art.
    248, in relation to Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
    That on or about December 29, 1989, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
    of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, armed with a knife, with treachery and
    evident premeditation and with intent to kill wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attacked,
    assaulted and stab with said weapon one Benito Ng Suy, thereby inflicting injuries MULTIPLE
    STAB WOUNDS-LEFT ARM, LEFT CHEST, ABDOMEN AND LEFT THIGH WITH PENETRATION TO LEFT
    PLEURAL CAVITY, DIAPHRAGM STOMACH, DUODENUM, PANCREAS AND MIDTRANVERSE COLON.
    upon the latter... due to the death of the victim, an amended Information was filed charging now
    the crime of murder... the accused Patricio Amigo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
    of MURDER punishable under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with no modifying
    circumstance present, the accused is hereby sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
    which is, the medium period of the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum to death and
    to pay the cost; to indemnify the offended party the amount of P93,214.70 as actual damages
    and P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
    Reversal thereof is now sought, with accused-appellant arguing that error was committed by the
    trial court in imposing or meting out the penalty of reclusion perpetua against him despite the
    fact that Sec. 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution was already in effect when the offense
    was committed.
    Issues:
    Weather or not the death penalty (or capital punishment) is not imposable when the stabbing
    and killing happened, the penalty of murder is reclusion perpetua.

    Ruling:
    The Judges stands can only interpret and apply them and have no authority to modify them or
    revise their range as determined exclusively by the legislature. They should not encroach on
    this prerogative of the lawmaking body.
    Coming back to the case at bar, we find that there being no generic aggravating or mitigating
    circumstance attending the commission of the offenses, the applicable sentence is the medium
    period of the penalty prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code which, conformably
    to the new doctrine here adopted and announced, is still reclusion perpetua. This is the penalty
    we imposed on all the accused-appellants for each of the three murders they have committed
    in conspiracy with the others. The award of civil indemnity for the heirs of each of the victims is
    affirmed but the amount thereof is hereby increased to P30,000.00 in line with the present
    policy.
    The above ruling was reiterated in People vs. Parominog (203 SCRA 673 [1991]) and in People
    vs. De la Cruz (216 SCRA 476 [1992]).
    Finally, accused-appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harsh a
    penalty and pleads for sympathy. Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of
    courts is to apply the law, disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused. DURA
    LEX SED LEX. The remedy is elsewhere — clemency from the executive or an amendment of the
    law by the legislative, but surely, at this point, this Court can but apply the law.
    WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like