Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People v. Duavis, G.R. No. 190861, December 7, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Drimtec Trading
    10 views3 pages
    Lino Duavis was drinking with Dante Largado Sr. when a fight broke out. Later, Largado attacked Duavis with a scythe. Duavis evaded and hacked Largado with the scythe, killing him. Duavis claimed self-defense. The trial court found Duavis guilty of murder. The appellate court affirmed guilt but modified the crime to homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that while Duavis proved he killed Largado, he failed to prove it was due to unlawful aggression by Largado. The Court found Duavis guilty of homicide without aggravating circumstances. It imposed a prison sentence of 8 years and 1 day minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    1. People v. Duavis, G.R. No. 190861, December 7, 2011

    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
    Lino Duavis was drinking with Dante Largado Sr. when a fight broke out. Later, Largado attacked Duavis with a scythe. Duavis evaded and hacked Largado with the scythe, killing him. Duavis claimed self-defense. The trial court found Duavis guilty of murder. The appellate court affirmed guilt but modified the crime to homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that while Duavis proved he killed Largado, he failed to prove it was due to unlawful aggression by Largado. The Court found Duavis guilty of homicide without aggravating circumstances. It imposed a prison sentence of 8 years and 1 day minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views3 pages

    People v. Duavis, G.R. No. 190861, December 7, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Drimtec Trading
    Lino Duavis was drinking with Dante Largado Sr. when a fight broke out. Later, Largado attacked Duavis with a scythe. Duavis evaded and hacked Largado with the scythe, killing him. Duavis claimed self-defense. The trial court found Duavis guilty of murder. The appellate court affirmed guilt but modified the crime to homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that while Duavis proved he killed Largado, he failed to prove it was due to unlawful aggression by Largado. The Court found Duavis guilty of homicide without aggravating circumstances. It imposed a prison sentence of 8 years and 1 day minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day

    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 3

    G.R. No.

    190861 December 7, 2011

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,


    vs.
    LINO L. DUAVIS, Appellant.

    Facts:
    On May 2, 2003, Lino Duavis (appellant) are on a drinking
    spree Dante Largado Sr (offended party). The appellant told
    the offended party to stop drinking but the latter got angry.
    The appellant then hurled a club at him. Largado, Sr. then
    attacked Appellant with a bolo, but he evaded. Appellant
    then returned to his house, gathering tuba at Romeo Drillos'
    coconut plantation. He was surprised to see Largado, Sr.
    hiding behind a coconut tree, preparing to attack him with a
    scythe. Appellant evaded Largado, Sr., and he hacked him
    with his scythe, causing his death. Appellant informed his
    father of the incident and wanted to surrender, but was
    arrested when he went out of his father's house.
    The trial court ruled that the appellant was guilty of murder
    and punishable to death penalty with the aggravating
    circumstance of evident premeditation.
    The appellant file a petition to CA that there is a valid self
    defense but the CA ruled that the appellant affirmed the
    decision and modify the crime to homicide.
    Before this court, the appellant assailed the decision of RTC
    and CA and that be acquitted by Justifying Circumstance of
    self defense.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is acquitted of the
    crime.
    Decision:
    No, the crime charge should be homicide.
    hornbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the
    burden of evidence shifts to the appellant to prove the
    elements of that claim,14 i.e., (1) unlawful aggression on the
    part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means
    employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient
    provocation on the part of the person defending
    himself.15 But absent the essential element of unlawful
    aggression, there is no self-defense.16

    In the present case, the appellant failed to prove the


    presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. As
    correctly observed and ruled by the trial court:

    The crime of murder should not also be appreciated because


    there was no aggravating circumstance of evident
    premeditation. A perusal of the evidence on record shows
    that the altercation between appellant Duavis and Dante
    Largado, Sr. took place at around 3:00 o'clock in the
    afternoon of May 2, 2003, and the hacking incident took
    place at around 5:30 in the afternoon of the same day. To
    the mind of the Court, the lapse of time between the
    decision and the execution is not sufficient to allow appellant
    to fully reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
    effectively and efficiently prepare and plan his actions prior
    to the commission of the crime. Although it may be argued
    that there was some kind of premeditation on the part of
    appellant Duavis, it was not proved to be evident.

    This Court further finds that the qualifying circumstance of


    treachery is not present in the instant case because evidence
    on record show that appellant Duavis chased Dante Largado,
    Sr. before the latter was hacked; hence, it cannot be
    concluded that appellant Duavis employed means of
    execution which gives Dante Largado, Sr. no opportunity to
    retaliate or escape. Moreover, the location of the hack
    wound on the left side of the face of the victim will also
    show that a frontal attack was made.
    Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
    maximum penalty will be selected from the above range,
    with the minimum penalty being selected from the range of
    the penalty one degree lower than reclusion temporal, which
    is prision mayor (six [6] years and one [1] day to twelve
    [12] years). Hence, the indeterminate sentence of eight (8)
    years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
    fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day
    of reclusion temporal, as maximum, should be imposed.

    You might also like