Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 212 views

    Forensic Linguistic Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Ocampo
    Noelito Dela Cruz y Deplomo was convicted of murdering Ramir based on witness testimony that saw Noelito holding a knife embedded in Ramir's forehead. However, Noelito claimed alibi and denial. The Supreme Court ruled that while Noelito was guilty of homicide, the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that treachery was present to qualify the crime as murder. Specifically, it was not shown that Noelito purposely adopted means to deprive Ramir of fighting back or retreating, and the crime appeared to be the result of provocation. Additionally, Noelito's insanity defense failed because symptoms of insanity before or during the crime were not proven.

    Copyright:

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

    Forensic Linguistic Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Ocampo
    212 views1 page
    Noelito Dela Cruz y Deplomo was convicted of murdering Ramir based on witness testimony that saw Noelito holding a knife embedded in Ramir's forehead. However, Noelito claimed alibi and denial. The Supreme Court ruled that while Noelito was guilty of homicide, the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that treachery was present to qualify the crime as murder. Specifically, it was not shown that Noelito purposely adopted means to deprive Ramir of fighting back or retreating, and the crime appeared to be the result of provocation. Additionally, Noelito's insanity defense failed because symptoms of insanity before or during the crime were not proven.

    Original Description:

    gsdfgds

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Noelito Dela Cruz y Deplomo was convicted of murdering Ramir based on witness testimony that saw Noelito holding a knife embedded in Ramir's forehead. However, Noelito claimed alibi and denial. The Supreme Court ruled that while Noelito was guilty of homicide, the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that treachery was present to qualify the crime as murder. Specifically, it was not shown that Noelito purposely adopted means to deprive Ramir of fighting back or retreating, and the crime appeared to be the result of provocation. Additionally, Noelito's insanity defense failed because symptoms of insanity before or during the crime were not proven.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    212 views1 page

    Forensic Linguistic Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Ocampo
    Noelito Dela Cruz y Deplomo was convicted of murdering Ramir based on witness testimony that saw Noelito holding a knife embedded in Ramir's forehead. However, Noelito claimed alibi and denial. The Supreme Court ruled that while Noelito was guilty of homicide, the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that treachery was present to qualify the crime as murder. Specifically, it was not shown that Noelito purposely adopted means to deprive Ramir of fighting back or retreating, and the crime appeared to be the result of provocation. Additionally, Noelito's insanity defense failed because symptoms of insanity before or during the crime were not proven.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    227997, October 16, 2019

    People of the Philippines vs. Noellito Dela Cruz y Deplomo

    Zalameda, R.V., J.:

    Facts:

    On 09 November 2009, Ramir was found dead by Ronald who testified that he saw the accused-appellant
    held a knife which was embedded in the forehead of the latter. Vilma Foronda, another prosecution
    witness also testified that she saw accused-appellant knocked on the victim’s door

    The autopsy conducted by Dr. Rey San Diego on the victim showed that the victim sustained incised
    wounds on the forehead as well as stab wounds and contusions on the body. Anent the stab wounds, two
    (2) of these were considered fatal and another two (2) were classified as defense wounds. A case for
    murder was filed against Noelito before the Regional Trial Court.

    Accused-appellant—to whose testimonies the present prosecution denied—attested that, on 09 November


    2009 at around 11:00 am, he was sleeping in his room, one floor below of victim’s, and that he did not
    have any sort of argument with the victim earlier that day. He denied owning the knife used in the killing.
    He further argued, in defense, that the witnesses were just upset at him due to his refusal of extending
    financial support. In the Court of Appeal, however, the defense claimed that during the time of the crime,
    accused-appellant was suffering from schizophrenia—to which testified by Dr. Jose Loveria.

    The Regional Trial Court convicted Noelito of the crime of murder on the ground of treachery. The same
    ruling was affirmed and modified by the Court of Appeals. Noelito appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Issue:

    Whether or not accused – appellant is liable for the crime of murder.

    Ruling:

    No.

    The Supreme Court held that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of homicide not murder qualified by
    treachery. The High Court ruled that in order for treachery to be present, the victim, at the time of the
    attack was not in a position to defend himself and the accused consciously and deliberately adopted
    means of attack employed by him. In this case, it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that treachery
    was present because it was not established that Noelito purposely adopted means, method or form of
    attack to deprive the victim the chance to either fight or retreat. The suddenness of the crime was a result
    of Ramir’s provocation towards Noelito. Further, the Supreme Court declared that alibi and denial relied
    upon the by the accused-appellant proved ineffective because of the proximity of his room from that of
    the victim. Finally, accused-appellant cannot claim insanity for his defense because he was not able to
    prove that he possessed symptoms of insanity immediately before or simultaneous with the commission
    of the crime.

    You might also like