Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    G.R. No. 28702

    Uploaded by

    modernbibliotheca
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding Pedro Pampolina guilty of homicide for his role in the 1927 killing of Hermogenes Punsalan in Calauan, Laguna. The court held there was sufficient evidence that Pampolina participated in the crime based on the testimony of an eyewitness. It also considered Pampolina's failure to immediately report the incident or surrender as evidence of his guilt. While abuse of superior strength was an aggravating circumstance, the defendants' limited education was extenuating, so the court imposed the medium penalty under the Penal Code.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 28702

    Uploaded by

    modernbibliotheca
    25 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding Pedro Pampolina guilty of homicide for his role in the 1927 killing of Hermogenes Punsalan in Calauan, Laguna. The court held there was sufficient evidence that Pampolina participated in the crime based on the testimony of an eyewitness. It also considered Pampolina's failure to immediately report the incident or surrender as evidence of his guilt. While abuse of superior strength was an aggravating circumstance, the defendants' limited education was extenuating, so the court imposed the medium penalty under the Penal Code.

    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 affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding Pedro Pampolina guilty of homicide for his role in the 1927 killing of Hermogenes Punsalan in Calauan, Laguna. The court held there was sufficient evidence that Pampolina participated in the crime based on the testimony of an eyewitness. It also considered Pampolina's failure to immediately report the incident or surrender as evidence of his guilt. While abuse of superior strength was an aggravating circumstance, the defendants' limited education was extenuating, so the court imposed the medium penalty under the Penal Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 28702

    Uploaded by

    modernbibliotheca
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding Pedro Pampolina guilty of homicide for his role in the 1927 killing of Hermogenes Punsalan in Calauan, Laguna. The court held there was sufficient evidence that Pampolina participated in the crime based on the testimony of an eyewitness. It also considered Pampolina's failure to immediately report the incident or surrender as evidence of his guilt. While abuse of superior strength was an aggravating circumstance, the defendants' limited education was extenuating, so the court imposed the medium penalty under the Penal Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Digest

    Facts:
    The case involves the accused Pedro Pampolina who was charged with homicide for his
    alleged participation in the killing of Hermogenes Punsalan. The incident occurred on
    March 14, 1927, in Calauan, Laguna. The accused, along with another defendant Julio
    Abril, were armed with revolvers and allegedly conspired to kill Punsalan. They fired
    several shots at Punsalan, causing fatal wounds that led to his death. The trial court
    found the accused guilty of homicide and sentenced them to reclusion temporal.

    Issue:
    The main issues raised in the case are as follows:

    1. Whether the trial court erred in giving more weight to the testimony of the prosecution
    witnesses over the defense witnesses.
    2. Whether the empty shells presented as evidence belong to the appellant Pedro
    Pampolina.
    3. Whether the appellant Pedro Pampolina participated in the commission of the crime.
    4. Whether the appellant's failure to inform the authorities and surrender himself
    immediately after the crime is evidence of guilt.
    5. Whether the appellant should be given the benefit of reasonable doubt and be absolved
    from the complaint.

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the accused guilty
    of homicide. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's
    participation in the crime. The court also considered the aggravating circumstance of
    abuse of superior strength, as the accused were armed with revolvers. However, the
    court took into account the defendants' scant education as an extenuating circumstance
    and imposed the penalty provided in the Penal Code in its medium degree.

    Ratio:
    1. The court held that the trial court did not err in giving more weight to the testimony of
    the prosecution witnesses. The court found the testimony of the witness Brigido Refran,
    who witnessed the shooting, to be credible and detailed. Any discrepancies in his
    affidavit before the trial were explained by the witness's fear of the accused and their
    relatives at that time.
    2. The court found that the empty shells presented as evidence belonged to a different kind
    of revolver from the one the appellant carried. This indicated that two kinds of revolvers
    were used in the crime.
    3. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's
    participation in the crime. The witness Brigido Refran testified that he saw the accused
    running away from the scene of the crime and firing additional shots. He also saw the
    appellant's revolver when his shirt got caught on a wire fence, revealing the revolver in
    the appellant's hip pocket.
    4. The court considered the appellant's failure to inform the authorities and surrender
    himself immediately after the crime as evidence of guilt. The appellant's delay in
    reporting the incident and surrendering himself five days later raised suspicion of his
    involvement in the crime.
    5. The court held that the crime committed was homicide, not murder with treachery.
    There was no conclusive proof that the aggressors employed ways and means to ensure
    the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. Treachery must be proved as
    conclusively as the act it qualifies.
    6. The court acknowledged the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as
    the accused were armed with revolvers. However, the court also considered the
    defendants' scant education as an extenuating circumstance. As a result, the court
    imposed the penalty provided in the Penal Code in its medium degree.

    You might also like