7/27/2019 Finals Crim Digest 1

1/1

#21 PEOPLE VS. LAPAN

Facts:

While coming from the Kingdom Hall of Jehovahs Witnesses common-law spouses Violeta

and Clark, knocked on the main door of their house but got no response. Clark went to the back of theirhouse and stoned the window of the room occupied by their 6 year old son and the housemaid to make

their presence known. Violeta continued knocking on the front door when the accused hurriedly openedthe door and went out of the house. When the spouses entered the house Clark discovered the bodies oftheir son and the housemaid in the bathroom. Violeta was able to clearly identify the accused since she

knows them, namely Bracamonte, Reginaldo, and Lapan. The accused were found guilty of doublehomicide, without any aggravating circumstance.

Issue:

WON the lower court erred in disregarding the aggravating circumstance of age and morada ordwelling.

Ruling:

Yes. Jay Vee the son was barely 6 years old when ruthlessly stabbed 14 times before his body

was submerged in the pail. The trial court also erred in disregarding morada or dwelling which aggravatedthe crime inasmuch the crime took place and was committed by the accused showed greater perversity in

the deliberate invasion of the tranquillity and privacy of the familys domicile.

#27 PEOPLE VS. VILLAVER

Fatcs:

In the morning of September 24, 1965 accused Villaver went to the sea together with 8 persons

including his daughter Francisca and their friend Genara to take a bath and gather shells. The accusedtried to abuse his daughter but the victim was able to run away and she related the incident to her friend

Genara. The night of that day Villaver forced his daughter to drink endrin, a liquid used to kill worms.Another daughter of the accused testified that before the incident she heard her father threatening to killher sister if she will not end her relationship with her sweetheart and she also witnessed the poisoning.

The accused was found guilty of parricide with aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation andintent to kill with immoral motive and sentenced death penalty. The decision was automatically appealed

to the Supreme Cout.

Issue:

WON the aggravating circumstances are present.

Ruling:

No. The evidence adduced does not support the existence of evident premeditation. The second

circumstance, while it may find support in the evidence, though hearsay in nature, same may not beconsidered as it does not fall under any of the aggravating circumstance enumerated in Article 14 of RPC.Unlike mitigating circumstances, there is no such thing as similar in nature and analogous to those

mentioned as aggravating circumstances.