Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 630 views

    Us vs. Brobst

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    The defendant, James Brobst, struck a former employee, Simeon Saldivar, in the ribs after Saldivar refused to leave a mining property where he had been banned from working. Saldivar then walked 200 yards to his sister's house and died at the door within two hours. The trial court found Brobst guilty of homicide. The Supreme Court held that proof of a heavy blow causing death within two hours sustains a finding of death by the blow, in the absence of evidence of an intervening cause. Even if Saldivar's health contributed to his death, the illegal blow still made Brobst criminally responsible. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Us vs. Brobst

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    630 views2 pages
    The defendant, James Brobst, struck a former employee, Simeon Saldivar, in the ribs after Saldivar refused to leave a mining property where he had been banned from working. Saldivar then walked 200 yards to his sister's house and died at the door within two hours. The trial court found Brobst guilty of homicide. The Supreme Court held that proof of a heavy blow causing death within two hours sustains a finding of death by the blow, in the absence of evidence of an intervening cause. Even if Saldivar's health contributed to his death, the illegal blow still made Brobst criminally responsible. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Original Description:

    US VS. BROBST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant, James Brobst, struck a former employee, Simeon Saldivar, in the ribs after Saldivar refused to leave a mining property where he had been banned from working. Saldivar then walked 200 yards to his sister's house and died at the door within two hours. The trial court found Brobst guilty of homicide. The Supreme Court held that proof of a heavy blow causing death within two hours sustains a finding of death by the blow, in the absence of evidence of an intervening cause. Even if Saldivar's health contributed to his death, the illegal blow still made Brobst criminally responsible. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    630 views2 pages

    Us vs. Brobst

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    The defendant, James Brobst, struck a former employee, Simeon Saldivar, in the ribs after Saldivar refused to leave a mining property where he had been banned from working. Saldivar then walked 200 yards to his sister's house and died at the door within two hours. The trial court found Brobst guilty of homicide. The Supreme Court held that proof of a heavy blow causing death within two hours sustains a finding of death by the blow, in the absence of evidence of an intervening cause. Even if Saldivar's health contributed to his death, the illegal blow still made Brobst criminally responsible. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    US VS.

    BROBST
    G.R No.4935
    October 25, 1909

    FACTS:
    The defendant, James L. Brobst, and another American named
    Mann, were engaged in work on a mine located in the Municipality
    of Masbate, where they gave employment to a number of native
    laborers. Mann discharged one of these laborers names Simeon
    Saldivar, warned him not to come back on the premises, and told
    the defendant not to employ him again, because he was a thief and
    a disturbing element with the other.

    A few days after, on the morning of July 10, 1907, Saldivar, in


    company with three or four others, went to the mine to look for
    work. The defendant saw Saldivar and ordered him to leave,
    however, Saldivar made no move to leave, and although the order
    was repeated, he merely smiled or grinned at the defendant,
    whereupon the latter become enraged, took three steps towards
    Saldivar, and struck him a powerful blow with his closed fist on the
    left side, just over the lower ribs, at the point where the handle of
    Saldivar’s bolo lay against the belt from which it was suspended.
    On being struck, Saldivar threw up his hands, staggered and
    without saying a word, went away in the direction of his sister’s
    house, which stood about 200 yards away, and about 100 feet up
    the side of the hill. He died as he reached the door of the house.

    The trial court found the defendant guilty of the crime


    homicide, and sentenced him to suffer six years and one day of
    prison mayor, and from this the defendant appealed to this court.

    The counsel of the appellant argue that the trial court erred to
    the following: (1) that the evidence fails to sustain a finding that the
    deceased came to his death as a result of injuries inflicted by the
    defendant and (2) that even if it be a fact that the defendant, in
    laying his hand upon the deceased, contributed to his death,
    nevertheless, since the defendant had a perfect right to eject the
    deceased from the mining property, he cannot be held criminally
    liable for unintentional injuries inflicted in the lawful exercise of
    this right.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not a death of Saldivar resulting from a blow of the
    defendant was proven without reasonable doubt?
    HELD/RATIO:
    Yes. That proof that a heavy blow with the closed fist, over the
    lower left ribs, inflicted upon the person in apparent good health,
    was followed by the death of that person in less two hours, sustains
    a finding that death resulted from the infliction of the blow in the
    absence of proof of any intervening cause and the circumstances
    being such as to afford no ground for reasonable doubt that no
    extraneous cause did in fact intervene.

    Where death results as the direct consequence of the use of


    illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened
    condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not
    relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility.

    The judgment of conviction and the sentenced imposed by the


    trial court should be and are hereby affirmed, with the cost of this
    instance against the appellant.

    You might also like