PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No. 230221, April 10, 2019

PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No.
230221, April 10, 2019
Accused Edgar Gayon was convicted by RTC for killing Leonora of Murder qualified by treachery and affirmed by
CA. Accused invoked self defense claiming that it was Leonora who pointed a knife at him according to accuse he
asked Leonora what his wife did which caused their frequent quarrel and said that his wife kept on fighting back.
Leonora then stood with the knife still pointing at accused Edgar, who tried to resist the instrument. During the
struggle, accused Edgar allegedly saw Leyden's husband approaching with something to hit him, so he pushed
Leonora inside Leyden's house. Accused testified that he did not notice if the knife caused any injury.
Is the invocation of self defense proper?
No. a claim of self-defense, accused has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the killing was
attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person resorting to self-defense. Unlawful aggression refers to "an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person." Without unlawful aggression, the justifying circumstance of self-
defense has no leg to stand on and cannot be appreciated.
Accused Edgar failed to discharge his burden. His uncorroborated and self-serving claim that it was Leonora who
pointed a knife at him pales in comparison to and loses probative value when compared to the positive testimony of
Leyden, who identified accused as the one who entered her house and stabbed the victim. Also, as correctly
pointed out by the CA, the nature and number of wounds suffered by the victim "logically indicated that the assault
was no longer an act of self-defense but a determined aggression on the part of the accused." The plea of self-
defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence and is in
itself extremely doubtful. Accused’s evidence sorely lacking to establish self-defense.
PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No. 230221, April 10, 2019
RTC convicted accused appellant Edgar Gayon of Murder qualified by treachery and affirmed by CA. RTC found
qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven due to the suddenness of the attack by accused Edgar
without giving the Leonora Givera a chance to defend herself. According People's witness Leyden, Edgar sat on
the lap of Leonora and suddenly stabbed Leonora several times. She even saw Edgar’s knife embedded on
Leonora's right shoulder Leyden dragged Leonora inside the house. Leyden claimed that Leonora uttered to her
that she was dying and Leyden likewise heard Edagr told his father Rodolfo "Papay we have no more problem
because I killed your sister.
Is the RTC correct?
No. Mere suddenness of the attack is not sufficient to hold that treachery is present. For treachery to exist there
must be a showing that the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the accused with a view
of accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor.
There is no showing in this case that Edgar carefully and deliberately planned the killing in the manner that would
ensure his safety and success. Moreover, the testimony of the eyewitness confirmed that Leonora was attacked at
the place familiar to her and in the presence of other people who are related to the victim.
Treachery must be proven as fully and convincingly as the crime itself; and any doubt as to existence must be
resolved in favor of the accused.
ROXAS vs Sec. De Lima G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019

On May 29, 2013, then President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law R.A. No. 10592, amending Articles 29, 94,
97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, or the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Pursuant to the amendatory law, an IRR was
jointly issued by respondents Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila M. De Lima and Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II on March 26, 2014 and became effective on
April 18, 2014. Convicted Prisoners and intervenors assail the validity of its Section 4, Rule 1 that directs the
prospective application of the grant of good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study, teaching
and mentoring (TASTM), and special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) mainly on the ground that it violates
Article 22 of the RPC.
Is the IRR of RA No. 10592 violates Article 22 of the RPC?
Yes, every new law has a prospective effect. Under Article 22 of the RPC, however, a penal law that is favorable
or advantageous to the accused shall be given retroactive effect if he is not a habitual criminal.
R.A. No. 10592 does provide/prescribe/establish a penalty component of our correctional system, not define a
crime/offense or as it addresses the rehabilitation its provisions have the purpose and effect of diminishing the
punishment attached to the crime. The further reduction on the length of the penalty of imprisonment is, in the
ultimate analysis, beneficial to the detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls for the application of
Article 22 of the RPC.
The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592 actually works to the disadvantage of
petitioners and those who are similarly situated. It precludes the decrease in the penalty attached to their respective
crimes and lengthens their prison stay; thus, making more onerous the punishment for the crimes they committed.
Depriving them of time off to which they are justly entitled as a practical matter results in extending their sentence
and increasing their punishment. Evidently, this transgresses the clear mandate of Article 22 of the RPC.
PEOPLE v CA, G.R. No. 227899 July 10, 2019
Private respondents were charged and found guilty by the trial court for violation of Section 8, Article 11 of R.A.
No. 9165, in relation to Section 26 (d), Article II of same law imposing sentence of life imprisonment. The RTC
held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of conspiracy to manufacture dangerous
drugs. Borromeo, as co-conspirator, played a key role based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
When the case was appealed to the CA, the findings of the RTC were affirmed, but the CA modified the penalty
insofar as P/Supt. Borromeo was concerned sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of twelve ( 12) years and one
(1) day minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum. However, CA rendered an Amended Decision sentenced
Borromeo to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years whereby it corrected itself. People argued that CA erred in applying article 65 of RPC as basis
for modifying the penalties impose on private respondents.
Is the CA correct?
No. as to the penalty imposed, it was erroneous for the CA to apply Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as
this is not applicable to R.A. No. 9165. Section 98 of R.A. No. 9165 clearly states: Section 98. Limited
Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. - Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act,
except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
The Court reiterates that R.A. No. 9165 is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Any person convicted under
the said law, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the graduations under Article 65 of the RPC as R.A.
No. 9165 is a special law. The penalty imposed is life imprisonment, which is an indivisible penalty.

PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No. 230221, April 10, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No. 230221, April 10, 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No. 230221, April 10, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No.

230221, April 10, 2019

Is the invocation of self defense proper?

PEOPLE v. GAYON G.R. No. 230221, April 10, 2019

Is the RTC correct?

ROXAS vs Sec. De Lima G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019

Is the IRR of RA No. 10592 violates Article 22 of the RPC?

PEOPLE v CA, G.R. No. 227899 July 10, 2019

You might also like