Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 196 views

    2 People V Dansal

    Uploaded by

    Byron Claro
    The Supreme Court ruled against Appellant Dansal, who claimed he acted under irresistible force when he killed Abubacar Pagalamatan with four other individuals. The Court found that Dansal failed to prove the elements of irresistible force, as he did not establish that the other individuals physically or morally threatened him or that he resisted them in any way. Dansal merely stated the others brought him along and he assumed he would be killed if he did not follow, but did not prove his free will was overcome by a real and imminent threat on his life. Therefore, Dansal could not invoke the exempting circumstance of irresistible force.

    Copyright:

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

    2 People V Dansal

    Uploaded by

    Byron Claro
    196 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled against Appellant Dansal, who claimed he acted under irresistible force when he killed Abubacar Pagalamatan with four other individuals. The Court found that Dansal failed to prove the elements of irresistible force, as he did not establish that the other individuals physically or morally threatened him or that he resisted them in any way. Dansal merely stated the others brought him along and he assumed he would be killed if he did not follow, but did not prove his free will was overcome by a real and imminent threat on his life. Therefore, Dansal could not invoke the exempting circumstance of irresistible force.

    Original Title

    2 People v Dansal.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled against Appellant Dansal, who claimed he acted under irresistible force when he killed Abubacar Pagalamatan with four other individuals. The Court found that Dansal failed to prove the elements of irresistible force, as he did not establish that the other individuals physically or morally threatened him or that he resisted them in any way. Dansal merely stated the others brought him along and he assumed he would be killed if he did not follow, but did not prove his free will was overcome by a real and imminent threat on his life. Therefore, Dansal could not invoke the exempting circumstance of irresistible force.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    196 views1 page

    2 People V Dansal

    Uploaded by

    Byron Claro
    The Supreme Court ruled against Appellant Dansal, who claimed he acted under irresistible force when he killed Abubacar Pagalamatan with four other individuals. The Court found that Dansal failed to prove the elements of irresistible force, as he did not establish that the other individuals physically or morally threatened him or that he resisted them in any way. Dansal merely stated the others brought him along and he assumed he would be killed if he did not follow, but did not prove his free will was overcome by a real and imminent threat on his life. Therefore, Dansal could not invoke the exempting circumstance of irresistible force.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    2. People v. Dansal, GR No. 105002, July 17, 1997.

    PANGANIBAN, J:

    FACTS.

    The Regional Trial court of Iligan City Branch 2 sentenced appellant Dansal of the crime of murder. The trial
    court found that Appellant together with 4 other John Does, with treachery, evident premeditation, taking advantage
    of superior strength, and with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Abubacar
    Pagalamatan with a Garand rifle thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds which were the direct and
    immediate cause of his death.

    Now appellant Dansal appeal before the Supreme Court claiming that he acted under the compulsion of an
    irresistible force. To support this claim Dansal’s version of the crime is as follows: He went to visit his sister. At his
    sister’s house the other 4 appellants known as the Dorados, brought him to their house, left the following morning
    with garand rifles and proceeded to the house of the victim. Allegedly, they asked the victim to come out and then
    they fired their guns at him as soon as he appeared.

    ISSUE.

    Based on the foregoing, is accused-appellant is entitled to the exempting circumstance of irresistible


    force?

    RULING.

    The Court ruled in negative. Appellant cannot invoke the exempting circumstance of Actus me invite
    factus non est meus actus ('the act done by me against my will is not my act), otherwise known as
    irresistible force found in Article 12 Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

    In the case at bar, appellant did not mention that the Dorados physically or morally threatened to kill or
    hurt him. He did not even make any attempt to resist. He simply took for granted that they would kill or hurt him if
    he did not follow them. No evidence was presented to establish how, if at all, he was compelled to join the Dorados
    in killing the victim. In other words, appellant failed to prove that the Dorados made a real and imminent threat on
    his life or limb sufficient to overcome his free will.

    You might also like