Scribd
Upload
70 views4 pages

Republic of The Philippines National Capital Judicial Region Regional Trial Court Quezon City Branch 302

1) Miguel Pearson was charged with parricide for the death of his wife Laura Pearson. Laura was found stabbed to death in their bedroom. 2) Witness testimony and evidence established that Miguel and Laura had marital problems. Miguel had also been having an affair. 3) Circumstantial evidence indicated that Miguel had both motive and opportunity to kill Laura. He was alone with her prior to her death. 4) The court found Miguel guilty of parricide beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

Uploaded by

Tricia Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views4 pages

Republic of The Philippines National Capital Judicial Region Regional Trial Court Quezon City Branch 302

1) Miguel Pearson was charged with parricide for the death of his wife Laura Pearson. Laura was found stabbed to death in their bedroom. 2) Witness testimony and evidence established that Miguel and Laura had marital problems. Miguel had also been having an affair. 3) Circumstantial evidence indicated that Miguel had both motive and opportunity to kill Laura. He was alone with her prior to her death. 4) The court found Miguel guilty of parricide beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

Uploaded by

Tricia Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
QUEZON CITY
BRANCH 302

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIM CASE NO. QC-015-0011

Plaintiff,

-versus-

FOR: Parricide

Article 246 in relation to Article 6 of

the Revised Penal Code

MIGUEL G. PEARSON

Accused.

X-------------------------X

DECISION

THE FACTS

Miguel G. Pearson married Pauline M. Pearson on June 5, 1896. Pauline


and Miguel bore a child named Lianne M. Pearson a few years after their
marriage. They built and established a lucrative business of selling and exporting
seafood products in the Philippines. Unfortunately on September 7, 2000, Pauline
M. Pearson died of natural causes while vacationing in Morocco. Miguel G.
Pearson subsequently married Laura E. Pearson on June 3, 2005. Miguel and
Laura did not have any child. Miguel and Laura still continued with their
seafood business.

Two years after they married, Miguel G. Pearson and Laura E. Pearson
started having problems. Miguel would often shout, curse and blame Laura for
all the blunders in their business. Laura, being the patient and understanding
wife that she is, would not retaliate and instead, just mope over her husband’s
cruel disposition towards her. It was her ailing parents who were her only source
of consolation. Moreover, Laura knew of Miguel’s long-standing affair with a
certain Eloisa Magdalena. Laura accepted Miguel for who he is notwithstanding
his illicit affair with another woman and his outrageous temper.

On August 25, 2014, Miguel G. Pearson and Laura E. Pearson were


scheduled to visit their seafood plant in Navotas Port. It was harvesting season
for crabs and shrimps, and the spouses Pearson being one of the biggest seafood
exporters in the country, wanted to oversee their operation. However, Laura was
feeling sick that day and decided not to come with Miguel. Miguel told Laura
that he would just go back home if Laura has any special needs that Miguel
could attend to.

Miguel was at the Navotas seafood plant from 9:30 in the morning until
10:00 in the evening. After which, Miguel told his employees that he had to go
home to attend to his sickly wife. Around 12 midnight, the househelpers in the
spouses Pearson’s residence heard Miguel demand that they go upstairs. When
they got inside the master’s bedroom, the househelpers saw Miguel in a state of
shock, and his wife Laura’s lifeless body which was drenched in her own blood.
They all rushed her to the hospital where Laura was pronounced dead on arrival.

ISSUE

Whether Miguel G. Pearson is guilty of committing Parricide as defined and


penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code?

RULING

The Court resolves to CONVICT the accused Miguel G. Pearson.

Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is


killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendants or other descendants,
or the legitimate spouse of the accused.1

In People v. Cruz2, the key element in parricide is the relationship of the


offender with the victim. In the case at parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the
relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In
the absence of a marriage certificate. However, oral evidence of the fact of
marriage may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected to.

In the case at bar, “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B” prove that Laura E.


Pearson due to injuries suffered by the victim from multiple stabs. Miguel G.
Pearson admitted in his counter-affidavit that he is married to the victim Laura
E. Pearson. This fact was also corroborated by the affidavits executed by the
witnesses Lianne M. Pearson, daughter of Miguel G. Pearson from his first wife
and the parents of Laura namely, Ma. Eleanor Enriquez and Lorenzo Enriquez.

1
People v. Malabago G.R. No. 115686. December 2, 1996.
2
109 Phil. 288, 291 [1960].
Miguel Pearson, in his counter-affidavit, claims to have left the house at
around 5:30 in the morning to go to Navotas Port. He left Laura at home because
she was not feeling well. This was also affirmed by the affidavit of one of the
witnesses, Cherry Mae Santos. When Miguel came home, he alleged that he did
not notice anything unusual so he continued with his routine and dressed down
for bed. When he went inside their room to go to bed, he was taken aback by the
vision of his wife offered when he found her lying dead covered in her own
blood and stabbed.

Cristina Yang, who works for Miguel Pearson’s company as a secretary,


testified that she saw Miguel Pearson arrive at the Navotas Seafood Plant at 9:30
in the morning and leave the premises at 10:00 in the evening. However, it can be
deduced from her affidavit that she was not able to see Miguel Pearson at any
time between the said timeframe. Miguel Pearson can easily go out of the
premises and go back to his house anytime to check on his sickly wife and
subsequently, kill her.

Moreover, Lianne Pearson testified that her father only called her the day
after the incident. Miguel also told Lianne that there is a big chance that he will
be indicted to the crime of killing Laura. Consequently, Lianne Pearson was only
able to inform Laura’s parents, the spouses Enriquez, about the death of their
daughter. The reason for the belated apprisal by Miguel of Laura’s death is an
indication that Miguel is hiding something from his own daughter and his wife’s
parents.

The counter-affidavits executed by the househelpers also prove that


Miguel Pearson and Laura Pearson had a prior altercation a day before the
latter’s death. The complaint-affidavit executed by the parents of Laura Pearson,
spouses Enriquez, proves that Laura and Miguel would always fight about the
problems in their business and that Miguel would always physicially, verbally
and emotionally hurt their daughter. It is not far from reality that Miguel
Pearson can use his own bare hands to end the life of his wife, whom he has
repeatedly hurt during their marriage.

Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is that evidence which


indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference, which the fact draws from
the evidence established. 3 Rule 113, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides the
requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction which are: (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. From the foregoing
circumstances abovementioned, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide.

3
People v. Matito, 423 SCRA 617.
WHEREFORE, the Court rules the following:

The above-named accused, MIGUEL PEARSON y SCHULTZ is GUILTY of the


crime of PARRICIDE, as defined and penalized under Art. 246 of the Revised
Penal Code, and SENTENCED to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties provided by law.

HONORABLE JUDGE JUVENAL E. BELLA

You might also like