Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • III B People Vs Pugay D

    Uploaded by

    Margo Green
    62 views2 pages
    Pugay and Samson were found guilty of murder for the death of Miranda during a town fiesta. Pugay admitted to pouring gasoline on Miranda, believing it was water. Samson said he saw this but did not see who set Miranda on fire. The court found Pugay criminally liable for reckless imprudence, as he should have known the can contained gasoline. Samson's conviction was reduced to homicide with ordinary mitigating circumstances, as there was no evidence he intended to kill Miranda - his act was part of fun-making that evening without risk to himself.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    III B People vs Pugay D

    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
    Pugay and Samson were found guilty of murder for the death of Miranda during a town fiesta. Pugay admitted to pouring gasoline on Miranda, believing it was water. Samson said he saw this but did not see who set Miranda on fire. The court found Pugay criminally liable for reckless imprudence, as he should have known the can contained gasoline. Samson's conviction was reduced to homicide with ordinary mitigating circumstances, as there was no evidence he intended to kill Miranda - his act was part of fun-making that evening without risk to himself.

    Copyright:

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

    III B People Vs Pugay D

    Uploaded by

    Margo Green
    Pugay and Samson were found guilty of murder for the death of Miranda during a town fiesta. Pugay admitted to pouring gasoline on Miranda, believing it was water. Samson said he saw this but did not see who set Miranda on fire. The court found Pugay criminally liable for reckless imprudence, as he should have known the can contained gasoline. Samson's conviction was reduced to homicide with ordinary mitigating circumstances, as there was no evidence he intended to kill Miranda - his act was part of fun-making that evening without risk to himself.

    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

    G.R. No.

    74324

    PEOPLE vs. PUGAY & SAMSON

    November 17, 1988

    FACTS:

    The deceased victim Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, and the accused Pugay were friends.
    During a town fiesta, Gabion, the witness, was sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a comic
    book. He then saw Pugay and Samson with several companions making fun of Miranda. Pugay
    suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel and poured its
    contents on the body of the Miranda. The victim died due to the incident. Gabion, Pugay,
    Samson and 5 others were brought to the municipal building for interrogation. Pugay and
    Samson gave statements to the police. Pugay admitted in his statement that he poured a can of
    gasoline on the deceased believing that the contents thereof was water and Samson set the
    deceased on fire. Samson alleged in his statement that he saw Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda
    but did not see the person who set him on fire. Pugay and Samson were found guilty on the
    crime of murder but crediting in favor of the accused Pugay the mitigating circumstance of lack
    of intention to commit so grave a wrong.

    ISSUE:

    1. WON Pugay is criminally liable stating that he thought the canister contained water and
    not gasoline.

    2. WON Samson is criminally liable when he only wanted to set fire on victim’s clothes.

    DECISION:

    1. Yes he is and convicted for homicide through reckless imprudence.

    2. Yes he is. However, sentenced reduced from murder to homicide with ordinary
    mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

    RATIO DECIDENDII:
    1. Having taken the can with the stinging smell of flammable liquid from the engine of the
    Ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased, the
    accused knew that the can contained gasoline. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the
    diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that
    may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the
    deceased.

    2. His conviction of murder because of the presence of treachery is improper. There is


    entire absence of proof in the record that the accused Samson had some reason to kill
    the deceased before the incident. On the contrary, there is adequate evidence showing
    that his act was merely a part of their fun-making that evening. For the circumstance of
    treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate and the culprit employed means,
    methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
    its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party
    might make.

    You might also like