Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 134 views

    People v. Ursua

    Uploaded by

    Vian O.
    1) Defendant Benedicto Ursua was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for firing a revolver and killing policeman Alejandro Quiro. The court failed to enter judgment on Ursua's civil liability. 2) The private prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil liability, which the court denied, stating it lost jurisdiction after Ursua appealed. The private prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court can take cognizance of the private prosecution's appeal independently of the defendant's appeal. If the defendant's appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction, the private prosecution would be unable to appeal the civil liability ruling within

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Ursua

    Uploaded by

    Vian O.
    134 views1 page
    1) Defendant Benedicto Ursua was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for firing a revolver and killing policeman Alejandro Quiro. The court failed to enter judgment on Ursua's civil liability. 2) The private prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil liability, which the court denied, stating it lost jurisdiction after Ursua appealed. The private prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court can take cognizance of the private prosecution's appeal independently of the defendant's appeal. If the defendant's appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction, the private prosecution would be unable to appeal the civil liability ruling within

    Original Description:

    Crimpro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Defendant Benedicto Ursua was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for firing a revolver and killing policeman Alejandro Quiro. The court failed to enter judgment on Ursua's civil liability. 2) The private prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil liability, which the court denied, stating it lost jurisdiction after Ursua appealed. The private prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court can take cognizance of the private prosecution's appeal independently of the defendant's appeal. If the defendant's appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction, the private prosecution would be unable to appeal the civil liability ruling within

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Ursua

    Uploaded by

    Vian O.
    1) Defendant Benedicto Ursua was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for firing a revolver and killing policeman Alejandro Quiro. The court failed to enter judgment on Ursua's civil liability. 2) The private prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil liability, which the court denied, stating it lost jurisdiction after Ursua appealed. The private prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court can take cognizance of the private prosecution's appeal independently of the defendant's appeal. If the defendant's appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction, the private prosecution would be unable to appeal the civil liability ruling within

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE V.

    URSUA

    60 PHIL. 252 (1934)

    FACTS:

    Defendant-appellant Benedicto Ursua was charged and convicted of the crime of homicide through
    reckless imprudence for firing the revolver delivered to him by policeman Alejandro Quiro, hitting the
    latter in the abdomen, resulting in his death. The court, however, failed to enter judgment with respect
    to the civil liability. Accused filed a notice of appeal. The private prosecution filed an MR judgment on
    the civil liability of the accused. The court denied the MR because the cause had been appealed by the
    accused and said appeal had been allowed, it had already lost its jurisdiction to pass upon the motion
    of the private prosecution. Thus, the latter appealed to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the trial court can validly take cognizance of the appeal of the offended party independently of
    the appeal of the accused

    RULING:
    Yes. In this instance, this court, in its resolution dated November 28, 1933, declared the appeal of the
    accused abandoned. Therefore, the only question left to be decided is the appeal of the private
    prosecution with regard to the civil liability of the accused.

    The trial court's resolution that, because the cause had been appealed by the accused, it had lost its
    jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for reconsideration filed by the private prosecution nine days after
    the date of the judgment, is unfounded.

    The right of the injured persons in an offense to take part in its prosecution and to appeal for purposes
    of the civil liability of the accused (section 107, General Orders, No. 58), necessarily implies that such
    right is protected in the same manner as the right of the accused to his defense. If the accused has the
    right within fifteen days to appeal from the judgment of conviction, the offended party should have
    the right within the same period to appeal from so much of the judgment as is prejudicial to him, and
    his appeal should not be made dependent on that of the accused. If upon appeal by the accused the
    court altogether loses its jurisdiction over the cause, the offended party would be deprived of his right
    to appeal, although fifteen days have not yet elapsed from the date of the judgment, if the accused
    files his appeal before the expiration of said period. Therefore, if the court, independently of the
    appeal of the accused, has jurisdiction, within fifteen days from the date of the judgment, to allow the
    appeal of the offended party, it also has jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for reconsideration filed
    by the private prosecution in connection with the civil liability of the accused.

    As to the rest, it was an error for the court not to have entered judgment with respect to the civil
    liability of the accused (Springer vs. Odlin, 3 Phil., 344). Section 407 of General Orders, No. 58 expressly
    imposes upon the courts the duty of entering judgment with respect to the civil liability arising from the
    offense, if no reservation has been made to ventilate it in a separate action.

    You might also like