CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D Commented [2]: as much as possible, only entertain

issues relevant to the topic. note that some issues are

not explicitly worded in the case.
PETITIONER (NAME):
Alberto Benito
People v Benito L-32042,
RESPONDENT (NAME):
February 13, 1975

TOPIC : Vindication of a wrong SC RULING: The guilt of the appellant has been established beyond reasonable
Ivanah Tomo with two mitigating circumstances in his favor, that of plea of guilty and volunta
surrender.
FACTS: during recit, atty merc usually asks questions related to
● The issues raised by the accused revolve around the alleged errors of the lower court in how the topic was illustrated in the case. i noticed that he
usually doesnt ask follow-up questions if the info relevant
considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the crime
to the topic has been stated right away
● The accused was charged with murder of the victim Pedro Moncayo, Assistant Chief of during recit, atty merc usually asks questions related to
Personnel Transaction and Acting Chief of the Administrative Division of the Civil Service how the topic was illustrated in the case. i noticed that he
Commission. usually doesnt ask follow-up questions if the info relevant
to the topic has been stated right away
● The accused was a clerk in the Civil Service Commission, the deceased was his
superior officer. Commented [3]: Arguments of each party before SC.
May or may not be filled in depending on the case
● The victim was shot eight times with a .22 caliber revolver
● During the trial, the accused withdraw his not guilty plea and substitute it with a plea of ADDITIONAL NOTES
guilty ● The remark of the victim was uttered at 11 AM, while the crim happened at 5:30
● It is the contention of the accused that the criminal act of murder was committed
same day, in the him several hours to reflect and hold his temper. The Trial Cour
giving
immediate vindication of a grave offense done by the victim against the accused.
commit any error when it rejected the aforementioned incident as a basis for cred
● The supposed grave offense was when the victim remarked that the Civil mitigating
Servicecircumstance in favor of the accused.
Commission is a hangout of thieves. The accused felt alluded to because ● he
Thewas facing of th accused that he had with him a .22 caliber revolver on the
admission
then criminal and administrative charges on several counts involving hisDecember
honesty and 12, 1969; that when he saw the victim driving his car on P. Paredes St
integrity him up to corner of P. Paredes and Lepanto Streets where he shot the victim eigh
suddenly and without any warning, speaks eloquently of his
RTC RULING: The court sentenced the accused to death after finding him guilty as Commented [4]: Yes / No. SC's judgment/modification (if
principal in the crime of murder any).

How they made the decision based on the antecedent

CA RULING:
facts.

e.g., what elements must be present for a crime to be

ISSUE: considered as consummated? how did the element
1. W/N the remarks of the victim are enough mitigating factors of the crime manifest in the facts/conditions of the case?
Commented [1]: Please make it as concise as possible
Commented [5]: Doctrines, principles, etc
but also include important details (e.g., where did the
victim sustain the wound? how much money did the
offender take away from the complainant? what did the
offender want? what motivated him to commit the acts?)

note: add details that, during recit, would make it seem

like we actually read the full text

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

plan, generated by an all-consuming hatred, to kill the person whom he considered

responsible for all his misfortunes.