Scribd
Upload
73 views2 pages

Whether or Not The CA Correctly Found Wacoy and Quibac Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of The Crime of Homicide

The Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that Guillermo Wacoy and James Quibac were guilty of homicide rather than death caused in a tumultuous affray. The elements of a tumultuous affray were not present, as there were only two individuals who attacked the victim, and they acted together rather than in a confused manner against each other. While Wacoy and Quibac's actions caused the victim's death, the intent appeared to be to harm rather than kill the victim. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly found them guilty of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit such a serious wrong.

Uploaded by

vworldpeace
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
73 views2 pages

Whether or Not The CA Correctly Found Wacoy and Quibac Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of The Crime of Homicide

The Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that Guillermo Wacoy and James Quibac were guilty of homicide rather than death caused in a tumultuous affray. The elements of a tumultuous affray were not present, as there were only two individuals who attacked the victim, and they acted together rather than in a confused manner against each other. While Wacoy and Quibac's actions caused the victim's death, the intent appeared to be to harm rather than kill the victim. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly found them guilty of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit such a serious wrong.

Uploaded by

vworldpeace
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/ 2

FACTS:

IN THE Municipality of Tublay, Province of Benguet, Philippines, Year


2004, in the month of april, the accused, Guillermo Wacoy and James
Quibac, cooperating together, and with intent to kill punched, mauled and
kicked the stomach of Elner Aro, inflicting upon him obtuse traumatic
injuries, which legitimately caused Aro's death from there on. The Regional
Trial Court ruled that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of death caused in Tumultuous Affray. In relation with this, it
opined that conspiracy was not demonstrated and the prosecution failed to
show the degree and impact of injury personally inflicted on Aro that
prompted his death.
In opposition to the RTC's findings, the court of Appeals ruled that wacoy
and Quibac ought not to be sentenced of the crime of Death Caused in a
Tumultuous Affray since there were just two persons who exacted hurt on
the victim. Rather, they must be convicted of the crime of Homicide, with
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as
it was indicated that the reason for their attack on Aro was uniquely to
abuse or inflict physical damage on him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA correctly found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Homicide

RULING OF THE COURT.

The petition is without merit.

As indicated in Art. 251. The elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous


Affray are as follows: (a) that there be several persons; (b) that they
did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; (c) that these several
persons quarrelled and assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner; (d) that someone was killed in the course of the
affray; (e) that it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
deceased; and (f) that the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can be identified. [22] Based on
case law, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs
between several persons and they engage in a confused and
tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or
wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained.[23]
there were only two (2) persons, Wacoy and Quibac, who
The proof plainly settled that
picked on one defenseless individual, Aro, and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns
in inflicting punches and kicks on the victim. There was no confusion and
tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression. Since Wacoy
and Quibac were identified as the ones who assaulted Aro, the latter’s death cannot
be said to have been caused in a tumultuous affray
In this manner, the CA effectively held that Wacoy and Quibac's act of mauling Aro was the
proximate reason of latter’s death; ; and in that capacity, they should be held criminally subject along these
lines, specifically of the crime of Homicide. The penalty for the crime of Homicide must be
imposed in its minimum period due to the presence of the mitigating circumstance
of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Given the absence of evidence
showing that, apart from kicking and punching Aro on the stomach, something else
had been done; thus, evincing the purpose of merely maltreating or inflicting
physical harm, and not to end the life of Aro.

You might also like