Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 372 views

    Araneta Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    TheHoneybhie
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Eliseo Araneta, Jr. and Benjamin Bautista for the murder of Manuel Esteban, Jr. Esteban was shot and killed in a drinking establishment after a confrontation arose between his group and the group of Araneta and Bautista. While Araneta claimed he only inflicted a slight wound, the Court held him responsible for Esteban's death, as his actions directly led to the fatal shooting by his co-accused Bautista. The Court also ruled that the elements of self-defense were not present, as Esteban did not commit any unlawful aggression or assault against Araneta's group when he approached them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Araneta Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    TheHoneybhie
    372 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Eliseo Araneta, Jr. and Benjamin Bautista for the murder of Manuel Esteban, Jr. Esteban was shot and killed in a drinking establishment after a confrontation arose between his group and the group of Araneta and Bautista. While Araneta claimed he only inflicted a slight wound, the Court held him responsible for Esteban's death, as his actions directly led to the fatal shooting by his co-accused Bautista. The Court also ruled that the elements of self-defense were not present, as Esteban did not commit any unlawful aggression or assault against Araneta's group when he approached them.

    Original Title

    araneta vs ca

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Eliseo Araneta, Jr. and Benjamin Bautista for the murder of Manuel Esteban, Jr. Esteban was shot and killed in a drinking establishment after a confrontation arose between his group and the group of Araneta and Bautista. While Araneta claimed he only inflicted a slight wound, the Court held him responsible for Esteban's death, as his actions directly led to the fatal shooting by his co-accused Bautista. The Court also ruled that the elements of self-defense were not present, as Esteban did not commit any unlawful aggression or assault against Araneta's group when he approached them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    372 views2 pages

    Araneta Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    TheHoneybhie
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Eliseo Araneta, Jr. and Benjamin Bautista for the murder of Manuel Esteban, Jr. Esteban was shot and killed in a drinking establishment after a confrontation arose between his group and the group of Araneta and Bautista. While Araneta claimed he only inflicted a slight wound, the Court held him responsible for Esteban's death, as his actions directly led to the fatal shooting by his co-accused Bautista. The Court also ruled that the elements of self-defense were not present, as Esteban did not commit any unlawful aggression or assault against Araneta's group when he approached them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/jul1990/gr_l_43527_1990.

    html

    Araneta, jr vs CA

    Facts:

    At about a little past midnight of March 22, 1972, while the victim Manuel Esteban, Jr.
    and his companions Jaime Roque, Eduardo Saguil, Jesus Dizon and Charles Go were
    having a drinking spree at the mezzanine floor of the Sands Kitchenette, Rizal Avenue,
    Manila, a napkin container was thrown to their table coming from a group of three or four
    persons, which included the petitioners. The victim approached the group of petitioner
    Araneta, Jr. after which a heated argument ensued. Petitioner Bautista pushed the left
    shoulder of the victim causing the latter to spin at which time, petitioner Araneta, Jr. fired
    his gun with his left hand (his right hand is atrophied), hitting the victim, who was then in
    a stooping position, at the back. Having been shot, the victim drew his gun and fired
    indiscriminately hitting Manuel de Guzman, a companion of petitioner Araneta, Jr. on his
    left thigh. The bullet which wounded De Guzman hit the wall and ricocheted, hitting one
    of the accused Eden Ng along his umbilical cord. Petitioner Bautista then held the victim
    who was bent forward, on his right wrist and poked a gun at him. At this point, petitioner
    Bautista suddenly fired his gun hitting the chest of the victim. Roque and Saguil together
    with a bouncer from a nearby Soda Fountain brought the victim to the Jose Reyes
    Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

    eliseo Araneta, Jr. y Macute, herein petitioner, Benjamin Bautista y Mendoza, also a
    petitioner, Eden Ng y Dumantay and Joselito "Boy" Santiago were charged with murder
    for the death of one Manuel Esteban, Jr. due to multiple gun shot wounds on March 23,
    1972. Eliseo Araneta, Jr. and Benjamin Bautista appealed their conviction to the Court of
    Appeals. the appellate court rendered its decision affirming the decision of the trial court
    with modification as to the civil liability of petitioners for the loss of earning capacity of
    the deceased.

    Issue:

    Should an accused who admittedly shot the victim but is shown to have inflicted only a
    slight wound be held accountable for the death of the victim due to a fatal wound caused
    by his co-accused?

    Held:

    The rule is well-settled that an indispensable requirement of self-defense and defense of


    strangers under paragraphs 1 and 3, respectively, of Article 11, Revised Penal Code is
    unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 5 This element is not present in the case at
    bar.

    For unlawful aggression to be present in self-defense, there must be an assault or at


    least a threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind on the person defending
    himself. 6 In this case, there was no actual physical assault on petitioner Araneta, Jr. or
    any member of his group. Neither was it shown that the victim exhibited an intimidating
    attitude that is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an
    injury. 7 When the victim approached the group of Araneta, Jr., presumably to confront
    them as to the napkin container thrown at their table, he was not yet brandishing his gun
    as testified to by the prosecution witnesses. A mere threatening attitude on the part of
    the victim will not constitute unlawful aggression. 8 If there was any unlawful aggression,
    it came from the group of petitioner Araneta, Jr. when Bautista pushed the victim's
    shoulder after which petitioner Araneta, Jr. fired the first shot hitting the victim. It was
    only at this time when the victim drew his gun and fired indiscriminately. These facts
    have been duly established by the evidence for the prosecution.

    You might also like