Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The attempt of Jimmy to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having alighted after two shots were
fired in succession. Knowing that he was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised
his hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not appeased. He was pistol-whipped by
Mario, and after having fallen in the ground, was stabbed on the chest 3-4 times by Jesus.
He died on the way to the hospital.
Mario was convicted of murder, as qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. The
lower Court also found that he took advantage of his position as a police officer . He was
sentenced to death.
Issues/Held:
1. WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public
office/position – NO
2. WON there was
a. Conspiracy - YES
b. Treachery – YES
c. Evident premeditation – NO
d. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication – YES
Ratio:
1. The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force did not by itself justify
the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position. He acted
like a brother (of Moises), instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious
assault on his kin. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had a pistol with him.
It came in handy and he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no
relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility.
2. a. There was conspiracy since the two brothers, as well as their 2 companions,
apparently had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises. They all acted
in concert.
b. There was treachery since the crime was committed to insure that Jimmy would die.
His situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile and
unavailing. There was also no risk to the aggressors since two other companions
assisted them.
1
Jesus has already died and so he was not included as an accused in the information filed.
2
The two companions were not named and were not included in the information.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-capalac-crim-digest 1/1