Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 Crim1 - People Vs Pajares - Immediate Vindication of Grave Offense

    Uploaded by

    Justin Reden Bautista
    78 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pajares for murdering Diosdado Viojan. The trial court relied on the credible testimony of eyewitness Renato Perez, who positively identified Pajares as the perpetrator. Pajares' alibi claim of immediate vindication for an earlier assault on his brother was rejected because 10 hours had passed between the incidents, which was sufficient time for Pajares to have regained self-control. Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication did not apply, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was proper.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    6-Crim1_People-vs-Pajares_Immediate-Vindication-of-Grave-Offense

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pajares for murdering Diosdado Viojan. The trial court relied on the credible testimony of eyewitness Renato Perez, who positively identified Pajares as the perpetrator. Pajares' alibi claim of immediate vindication for an earlier assault on his brother was rejected because 10 hours had passed between the incidents, which was sufficient time for Pajares to have regained self-control. Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication did not apply, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    6 Crim1 - People Vs Pajares - Immediate Vindication of Grave Offense

    Uploaded by

    Justin Reden Bautista
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pajares for murdering Diosdado Viojan. The trial court relied on the credible testimony of eyewitness Renato Perez, who positively identified Pajares as the perpetrator. Pajares' alibi claim of immediate vindication for an earlier assault on his brother was rejected because 10 hours had passed between the incidents, which was sufficient time for Pajares to have regained self-control. Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication did not apply, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was proper.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs Pajares

    G.R. No. 96444 June 23, 1992

    TOPIC: IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

    FACTS:

    On or about the 11th day of October, 1985, at night time, purposely sought to insure and better
    accomplish his criminal design, in the City of Manila. Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and
    confederating together with five (5) others whose true names, real Identities, and present
    whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
    feloniously, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, attack, assault. and use personal
    violence upon one DIOSDADO VIOJAN Y SABAYAN, by then and there mauling him and hitting him
    with a baseball bat at the back of the head, a vital part of the body, thereby inflicting upon the said
    DIOSDADO VIOJAN Y SABAYAN a club wound on the head which was the direct and immediate
    cause of his death. He was likewise charged in a separate case filed with the crime of Frustrated
    Homicide upon one RENATO PEREZ Y RUIDERA.

    The Trial Court rendered decision finding the accused guilty of Murder against Diosdado Viojan with
    the penalty of reclusion perpetua and guilty of Slight Physical Injuries against Renato Perez.

    Appellant Pajares asserts that the trial court gravely erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion
    perpetua upon him. He avers that such a penalty is tantamount to a cruel, degrading or inhuman
    punishment which is prohibited by the Constitution. Appellant points out that hours before the
    clubbing incident, Roberto Pajares, appellant's younger brother, was mauled by the group of
    Diosdado Viojan as cited by the lower court referring to the entry in the Police Blotter and the
    sworn statement of Roberto Pajares. The mauling of the latter is a big insult and truly offending
    to the appellant and his family. Hence, the clubbing of Diosdado Viojan by herein appellant was
    a vindication of the grave offense committed against his family.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Trial Court erred in its decision imposing penalty of reclusion perpetua.

    HELD:

    No, in convicting herein appellant of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, the trial court
    relied heavily on the testimony of prosecution witness Renato Perez which it found to be
    credible. Appellant was Positively identified by Renato Perez as the perpetrator of the crime.

    It is doctrinally entrenched that the evaluation of the testimony of witnesses by the trial court is
    received on appeal with the highest respect because it is the trial court that has the opportunity
    to observe them on the stand and detect if they are telling the truth or lying in their teeth (People
    v. Santito, Jr., G.R. No. 91628, August 22, 1991)

    The accused statements are pure alibi which is one of the weakest testimony an accused can
    provide in a court proceeding.
    The next question is whether or not the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a
    grave offense can be appreciated in his favor. While it may be true that appellant's brother
    Roberto Pajares was mauled by the companions of the deceased at about 11:30 a.m. of
    October 11, 1985 as show in the entry in the Police Blotter and by appellant's brother himself, it
    must be emphasized that there is a lapse of about ten (10) hours between said incident and
    the killing of Diosdado Viojan. Such interval of time was more than sufficient to enable appellant
    to recover his serenity (People v. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, December 17, 1976)

    Hence, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be


    appreciated in his favor.

    by ebvilla

    You might also like