9/1/22, 2:18 PM Case Digests from Philippine Jurisprudence: Dizon v.

CA

Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Case Digests from Philippine Jurisprudence

T h u r s d a y, A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 1 8 Search This Blog

Search
Dizon v. CA
Pages
Facts: Home
around 7:00 in the evening on May 11, 1990, patrolmen Ernesto Marquez
and Alfredo Opriasa, of the Western Police District followed a group of About Me
rallyist, numbering about 20 to 25, that marched along Recto Avenue then
edelayana
turned left on Nicanor Reyes Street (formerly Morayta Street) and proceeded
student of law and
to España Street. The group was protesting the coming exploratory talks politics
between the governments of the Philippines and the United States concerning
View my complete
the extension of the Military Bases Agreement which was due to expire on profile
September 16, 1991. Upon reaching the intersection of España and A.
Maceda Streets, the demonstrators stopped to stage a noise barrage. Labels

Civil Law Commercial

Opriasa got hold of accused-appellant who was left behind while trying to
Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law
light one of the tires on the street. Opriasa frisked accused-appellant and
Labor Law Legal Ethics
confiscated from him a pillbox. Pfc. Cacacete, a bomb specialist, found it
Remedial Law Statutory
positive for explosive. Construction Taxation

Appellant’s alibi: He was a student at the Polytechnic University of the

Report Abuse
Philippines and a member of the League of Filipino Students, one of the
largest student-based activist groups in the country.
The trial court found Dizon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866. CA affirmed the
decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion

Held:
No. Although the penalty should be modified in view of the amendment to
PD No. 1866.
The device failed to explode during the July 16, 1990 killer earthquake
notwithstanding that Dequitos cabinet which contained the device fell
sideways on a table. However, as Marilyn Dequito explained:

[T]he pillbox was not really totally sealed. What I placed in my

locker [is an] explosive that w[as] not totally sealed. It [was] opened
already. In fact, moisture has already been absorb[ed] by that mixture
of substances and I dont thin[k] it will explode and there will be no

https://casedigests-ph.blogspot.com/2018/08/dizon-v-ca.html 1/2
9/1/22, 2:18 PM Case Digests from Philippine Jurisprudence: Dizon v. CA

explosion anymore.But if the pillbox is totally sealed, when you

throw it, pressure will be built inside so when you throw it the
pressure will be released. That is the time that there will be an
explosion when the pressure will be released.

Both the trial court and the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty of
illegal possession of pillbox as defined and punished in 3 of P.D. No. 1866.
However, the penalty imposed on accused-appellant must be modified in
view of Republic Act No. 8294.

- August 30, 2018

Labels: Criminal Law

No comments:
Post a Comment
To leave a comment, click the button below to sign in with
Blogger.

SIGN IN WITH BLOGGER

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.

https://casedigests-ph.blogspot.com/2018/08/dizon-v-ca.html 2/2