Case Digests

People of the Philippines vs Timoteo Penesa

December 16, 2016

People of the Philippines vs Timoteo Penesa

Another case digest about People of the Philippines vs. Timoteo Penesa. This has a GR No CA-263. August 19, 1948 (81 Phil 398).

People of the Philippines vs Penesa

[GR No CA-263. August 19, 1948] | 81 Phil 398

Facts:

Timoteo Penesa and Rosario Aguillon lived, as husband and wife, in a barrio in Camarines Sur. Rosario’s children of her late husband lived with them as well. There have been wrangles between Timoteo and Rosario’s children of her late husband and the couple then decided to live apart. They had certain arrangements in the division of the palay, lumber and firewood.

Timoteo left the house on August 30, 1942 and early the next day, he returned asking Rosario to live with him in another place but she refused. Santiago Cerrado, Rosario’s cousin, came to the house and upon seeing Timoteo, he asked if why he was there after they agreed to live separately. Timoteo got angered and unsheathed his bolo and assaulted Santiago. Cresencio Doro, Rosario’s eldest son, tried to prevent another blow upon Santiago and made a similar remark to Timoteo. Then Rosario went down through the stairway preceded by Santiago. Cresencio and Timoteo grappled for the possession of the bolo and both fell on the floor. A brother of Rosario snatched the bolo and a dagger from Timoteo’s hands. As the result of this, Santiago was wounded although not serious. On the other hand, Cresencio was also wounded from the scene.

Upon the evidence that the trial court found Timoteo Pasana guilty of frustrated homicide and holding that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation without any aggravating circumstance. Then, he appealed. He stated his own version of the story however there’s an inherent improbability of the appellant’s story about the assault of which he claims to be the victim. The trial court found him guilty of frustrated homicide and this is an error.

Issue:

Whether or not a prosecuting officer who did not have a lawful appointment still have authority

Held:

A prosecuting officer who has no lawful appointment, may at least be a de facto officer.


READ  Almendra vs Judge Asis

You Might Also Like

No Comments

Leave a Reply