CASE DIGESTS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABENIR BRUSOLA

Summary: There is never any justification for a husband to hit his wife with a maso
(mallet). Well settled is the rule that it is unnatural for a relative, in this case the
accused's own child, who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody
else other than the real culprit. For her to do so is to let the guilty go free.
FACTS: In the Information, appellant Abenir was charged with the killing of his wife,
Delia Brusola as follows, that accused, being the husband of DELIA BRUSOLA, with
intent to kill and with the use of ball hammer, feloniously hit his said wife, with the
said ball hammer on her head, thereby causing fatal injury to the latter which directly
caused her death.
For his defense, appellant claimed that on the night of the incident, Abenir came
home. While he was preparing things, Delia went outside. She appeared to be waiting
for somebody. After taking a bath, she fixed her face. When Abenir asked if Delia was
going somewhere, she said it was none of his business. Abenir went to the bathroom
for his personal effects. While inside, he heard people talking outside and looked out
through a crack in the plywood wall. He saw a man and a woman kiss and identified
the woman as Delia, who told the man, "Huwag muna ngayon, nandiyan pa siya."
The man embraced her, and groped her breast and private parts. Abenir picked up
the maso, went outside, and approached them, who were surprised to see him.
Abenir attacked the man who used Delia as a shield and pushed her toward Abenir.
He asserted that he planned to attack the man whom he saw was with his wife but
accidentally hit Delia instead.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of parricide.
HELD: Yes. Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty
of parricide.
Here, there was no dispute as to the relationship between the accused-appellant and
the victim. As for the act of killing, their daughter Joanne clearly testified that she
suddenly saw her father hit the head of her mother with a small mallet. Joanne's
straightforward and candid narration of the incident is regarded as positive and
credible evidence, sufficient to convict the accused.

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS

/ Criminal Law / 17

CAPISTRANO DAAYATA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS: On December 17, 1995, Rolando O. Bahian alleged that Capistano Daataya
et al, conspiring mutually, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, assaulted,
box, kick and struck Bahian. This incident happen a day after a commotion incident
between the parties in the basketball court. Bahian Farther alleged that a stone was
thrown to his head by petitioners that causes depress frontal fracture, open frontal
bone, left, and advice for surgery. The petitioners pleaded not guilty.
The defense, apart from the three petitioners, offered the testimonies of Delfin Yafiez
(Delfin), Rodolfo Yafiez (Rodolfo), Danzon Daayata (Danzon) and Rosemarie Daayata
(Rosemarie ). Petitioners Salisi and Malacat claimed that they were having coffee at
the house of Vicente Daayata (Vicente), in the morning of December 17, 1995.
Bahian arrived with Kagawad Abalde, and called for Salisi to come out. When Salisi
acceded, Bahian challenged him to a fight and threw the first punch that started a
scuffle. In the course of the melee, Bahian took a swing for Salisi, who ducked,
causing Bahian to lose his balance. Bahian then fell on the pavement and hit his head.
Kagawad Abalde then drew a gun, poked it at Salisi, and threatened to kill him. For
his part, petitioner Daayata claimed that he was in his house, some 50 meters away
from Vicente's house when the incident recalled by petitioners Salisi and Malacat
transpired. He rushed to Vicente's house upon hearing a commotion. Farther said the
Barangay Captain Yafiez arrived after an hour. They added however, that in the
evening of December 16, while they were on their way home, Bahian waited for them
to pass by his house, where he challenged them to a fight. Defense witness Rodolfo
allegedly pacified Bahian.
Frustrated murder case was file against petitioners, the petitioners ordered guilty by
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City. The
petitioners appealed in the court of appeals but affirmed guilty. However, Bahian
Medical Certificates showed no injury other than that on fore head. Bahian during the
questioning admitted that the injury on the forehead was cause by accidentally he
hit the edge of the concrete pavement.
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of petitioners
beyond reasonable doubt, a ground for acquittal of the petitioners?
HELD: Yes, the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of petitioners beyond
reasonable doubt, a ground for acquittal of the petitioners.
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is guaranteed
under Section 14(2), Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
This fundamental right of the accused is also embodied under Section 2, Rule 133 of

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS

/ Criminal Law / 18
the Rules of Court, which specifically states that "in a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility
of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required,