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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 159 views

    242-People Vs de Guzman 224 SCRA 93

    Uploaded by

    Arlen Rojas
    Victor Nuñez Jr. was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder for a shooting incident in Cebu City. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. It found that his constitutional rights were not violated by his arrest or the paraffin test conducted without counsel. While his co-accused were acquitted due to reasonable doubt, the evidence still proved conspiracy between Nuñez and the others. The Court increased the civil indemnity to P50,000 per victim in accordance with recent rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    242-People Vs de Guzman 224 SCRA 93

    Uploaded by

    Arlen Rojas
    159 views2 pages
    Victor Nuñez Jr. was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder for a shooting incident in Cebu City. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. It found that his constitutional rights were not violated by his arrest or the paraffin test conducted without counsel. While his co-accused were acquitted due to reasonable doubt, the evidence still proved conspiracy between Nuñez and the others. The Court increased the civil indemnity to P50,000 per victim in accordance with recent rulings.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    242-People vs De Guzman 224 SCRA 93

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Victor Nuñez Jr. was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder for a shooting incident in Cebu City. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. It found that his constitutional rights were not violated by his arrest or the paraffin test conducted without counsel. While his co-accused were acquitted due to reasonable doubt, the evidence still proved conspiracy between Nuñez and the others. The Court increased the civil indemnity to P50,000 per victim in accordance with recent rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    242-People Vs de Guzman 224 SCRA 93

    Uploaded by

    Arlen Rojas
    Victor Nuñez Jr. was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder for a shooting incident in Cebu City. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. It found that his constitutional rights were not violated by his arrest or the paraffin test conducted without counsel. While his co-accused were acquitted due to reasonable doubt, the evidence still proved conspiracy between Nuñez and the others. The Court increased the civil indemnity to P50,000 per victim in accordance with recent rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs.

    De Guzman Case Digest


    People Vs. De Guzman
    224 SCRA 93
    G.R. Nos. 98321-24
    June 30, 1993

    Facts: All the accused were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu with
    three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder in four Informations. The
    victim Jose Bantug was found with gunshots in the head, body, and skull. The other
    three informations charged them with the murder of Francisco Carteciano y Sorilla
    and Antonio S. Carteciano, and the frustrated murder of Lorna V. Carteciano. The
    other 8 accused were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, while Victor
    Nuñez was found guilty.

    The facts shown by evidence are: One morning, Major Antonio Carteciano was driving
    his private jeep Camp General Arcadio Maxilom in Lahug, Cebu City where he was
    stationed as medical officer of the PC/INP Provincial Command. In the front seat with
    him is his wife Lorna, and at the backseat are his mother in law, son, brother Francisco,
    neighbor Bantug, and Bantug’s son. Near the intersection, gunshots were heard from
    the left side of the street. Major Carteciano took his .45 cal pistol and fired. However,
    gunshots were fired in succession, and Major Carteciano, his brother Francisco, Jose
    Bantug, and his wife Lorna were hit. When the jeep stopped, several gunmen
    approached them. Nuñez demanded Lorna to give Nuñez her husband’s pistol. Lorna
    asked to take her valuables instead. Then, Nuñez shot Major Carteciano’s head point
    blank. Then the gunmen hijacked another jeep and took off. Lorna, her mother
    Juanita Ricaplaza, and her son Reiser Carteciano positively identified the accused.
    Lorna identified Nuñez as the one who shot her husband. Nuñez claimed that his arrest
    was illegal and that he was deprived of his right to counsel when he was subjected to
    a paraffin test without the assistance of counsel.

    Issue: Whether or not the accused Nuñez’s constitutional right was violated

    Held: No. Nuñez pleaded not guilty at the arraignment. Therefore, he is estopped from
    questioning the validity of his arrest. Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not
    sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
    complaint after trial free from error. The witnesses also positively identified the
    accused, so he cannot question the credibility of the witnesses. Regarding his right to
    counsel, the Supreme Court held that-- the right to counsel attaches only upon the
    start of an investigation, that is, when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to
    elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. At such point or
    stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the
    pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips
    of the person undergoing interrogation. In the case at bar, when accused was
    subjected to a paraffin test, he was not then under custodial investigation. Accused-
    appellant also argued that since his co-accused were acquitted, then their acquittal
    negates conspiracy among them, and he should not be convicted with the charges
    filed. However, the Court held that conspiracy was still proven by the evidence, and
    the other co-accused were acquitted only because there was reasonable doubt.
    Therefore, accused-appellant is still convicted of the four charges against him.

    We, therefore, find that the conviction of accused-appellant for the crimes charged
    has been established beyond reasonable doubt and the penalty imposed is in
    accordance with law. However, the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court should
    be increased to P50,000 in conformity with our recent rulings on the matter.

    WHEREFORE, except for the modification that the civil indemnity to be paid by
    accused-appellant Victor Nuñez, Jr. to the heirs of each victim who died is hereby
    increased to P50,000, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects,
    with costs against accused-appellant

    You might also like