Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Article 13 Par. 5 - Vindication: Cardo Bacabac V. People of The Philippines 532 Scra 557 (2007) Facts: Issue

    Uploaded by

    jason caballero
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether the defendant qualified for a mitigating circumstance of "immediate vindication of a grave offense." The defendant's nephew was involved in a physical altercation where his ear was hit with a stick. Later, when the defendant encountered the victims, a confrontation occurred where he fired his weapon, killing two people. The Supreme Court affirmed he did not qualify for the mitigating circumstance because having one's ear hit with a stick is not considered a "grave offense," and his nephew was not a relative covered by the law. The defendant was found guilty of murder.

    Copyright:

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

    Article 13 Par. 5 - Vindication: Cardo Bacabac V. People of The Philippines 532 Scra 557 (2007) Facts: Issue

    Uploaded by

    jason caballero
    18 views1 page
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether the defendant qualified for a mitigating circumstance of "immediate vindication of a grave offense." The defendant's nephew was involved in a physical altercation where his ear was hit with a stick. Later, when the defendant encountered the victims, a confrontation occurred where he fired his weapon, killing two people. The Supreme Court affirmed he did not qualify for the mitigating circumstance because having one's ear hit with a stick is not considered a "grave offense," and his nephew was not a relative covered by the law. The defendant was found guilty of murder.

    Original Title

    Bacabac_V._People.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 document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether the defendant qualified for a mitigating circumstance of "immediate vindication of a grave offense." The defendant's nephew was involved in a physical altercation where his ear was hit with a stick. Later, when the defendant encountered the victims, a confrontation occurred where he fired his weapon, killing two people. The Supreme Court affirmed he did not qualify for the mitigating circumstance because having one's ear hit with a stick is not considered a "grave offense," and his nephew was not a relative covered by the law. The defendant was found guilty of murder.

    Copyright:

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

    Article 13 Par. 5 - Vindication: Cardo Bacabac V. People of The Philippines 532 Scra 557 (2007) Facts: Issue

    Uploaded by

    jason caballero
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether the defendant qualified for a mitigating circumstance of "immediate vindication of a grave offense." The defendant's nephew was involved in a physical altercation where his ear was hit with a stick. Later, when the defendant encountered the victims, a confrontation occurred where he fired his weapon, killing two people. The Supreme Court affirmed he did not qualify for the mitigating circumstance because having one's ear hit with a stick is not considered a "grave offense," and his nephew was not a relative covered by the law. The defendant was found guilty of murder.

    Copyright:

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

    ARTICLE 13 Par.

    5 -VINDICATION he should have been credited with the mitigating circumstance of


    “immediate vindication of a grave offense.
    CARDO BACABAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 532 SCRA
    557 (2007) ISSUE:

    FACTS: Whether or not, assuming the correctness of the pronouncement of guilt,


    should petitioner be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
    There was an apparent mis-understanding that ensued between the victim Article 13. Par. 5 (That the act was committed in the immediate vindication
    (Hernani, Eduardo and Melchor) and the petitioner’s group (Jonathan and of a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
    Edzel) as witnessed by Jesus. This misunderstanding led to a physical descendants, legitimate. Natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives
    altercation (hitting the petitioner’s group with sticks/bamboo sticks) with by affinity within the same degrees)
    the victim’s group dominating. Jesus threatened to shoot the victims and so
    the scuffle ended.Jesus went to report the incident to Edzel’s father (Jose). RATIO:

    The victim and his companions, headed in the course, they met the SC affirmed the decision of the appellate court which is murder with
    petitioner’s group in the corner of M.H Del Pilar and Sto. Domingo streets. aggravating circumstances (needed to pave way for the deliberation of
    Petitioner’s group armed with armalites and wood. Jesus pointed to the vindication as mitigating circumstance).
    victims as the one manhandling Edzel and Jonathan. The victim apologized,
    explaining that they mistook them for someone else. Still, the petitioner, Mitigating Circumstances; Vindication of a grave offense
    fired his armalite to the air and Jose, spraying bullets left to right even
    hitting Jonathan. Eduardo fell and Melchor escaped but the Hernani, who The offense committed on Edzel was “hitting” his ear with a stick. Edzel
    was in kneeling position and raising his hands in surrender, was then and admitted that he was not hit on his head but on his ear. The act is obviously
    there shot by Jose.Eduardo and Hernani died. not a “grave offense”. Edzel is petitioner’s nephew, hence not a relative by
    affinity within the same degree as contemplated in Article 13. Par. 5.
    Thelower court of Iloiloconvicted the perpetrators of murder qualified by DISPOSITIVE:
    treachery with the Court of Appeal affirming.
    Hence, petitioner does not qualify to the mitigating circumstance of
    When elevated to the Supreme Court, one of t he contentions of the vindication. SC affirmed the decision of the appellate court.
    petitioner is that “assuming the correctness of the pronouncement of guilt,

    You might also like