Saturday, February 25, 2012

Castanares vs. CA [August 6, 1979]

Facts: Accused Castanares was charged before the CFI under 2 separate information for homicide for the deaths of the brothers, Manual and Felizardo Pacheco. The CA modified its judgment in favor of the accused because o the mitigating circumstance of unlawful aggression on the part of the victims. Accused filed for a motion for reconsideration praying that he be acquitted but the same was denied. 

Version of the Accused: 

Felizardo demanded from the accused that he be given fish. The Accused denied so Felizardo boxed the appellant who ducked the blow. Manuel said “May araw ka rin!” After 10 minutes, Manuel (standing near the toilet) appeared before the appellant and asked “Bkt mo sinuntok kapatid ko?” and while accused was approaching him while explaining, Manuel drew his .45 pistol. Accused grabbed the gun. Manuel was pushed back sitting against the toilet wall. Accused saw Manuel picked up something from the floor which appeared to be an iron bar. Accused fired at Manuel. Felizardo (who was standing near the truck) drew a knife charging against accused and swung to stab accused. Accused fired which Felizardo’s right arm which cause Felizardo to drop the knife. Felizardo tried to get the knife back. Accused said “Bitawan mo iyan” but Felizardo didn’t. So appellant fired at felizardo. 

Version of Prosecution: 

Felizardo went to the riverside where he met appellant who boxed him. Felizardo returned to the gate of the compound. The Pacheco brothers went to the riverside to inquire why he hit Felizardo. Instead, accused went down by the outriggers of the boat then fired at Manuel. Felizardo saw Manuel was sot so he run away, but the accused still fired at him. When he was faced down, accused fired at him twice. 

Issue: Whether or not Castanares is guilty of homicide 

Held: Castanares is ACQUITTED. Reason: self-defense 

From the facts established by the defense, it is clear that the brothers initiated the unlawful aggression. 

The second element of self-defense is reasonable necessity for the means employed in repelling the unlawful aggression. This is present. It’s not true that after the accused grabbed the gun for Marion, he was no longer in peril. It is because Manuel was about to pick something from he floor. In addition, regarding Felizarde, the accused only fired when he was trying to retrieve the knife he had dropped. 

Although the general rule is that the presence of motive in the killing of a person is not indispensable to a conviction especially where the assailant is duly established, in this case, he absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between 2 antagonistic versions. Herein, the 2 victims have reason to harm the accused.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "Castanares vs. CA [August 6, 1979]"

Post a Comment