Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 236 views

    People vs. Beltran G.R. NO. 168051 SEPT 27, 2006 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Arya Stark
    The court found Honorato Beltran Jr. guilty of murdering Norman H. Concepcion. Several witnesses testified that Beltran repeatedly hacked Concepcion with a bolo along a road, while Beltran claimed self-defense. The court ruled there was no evidence of sufficient provocation or threat from Concepcion that would have justified or mitigated Beltran's actions. Any earlier altercation between the two was too remote to reasonably provoke Beltran to commit murder. The presence of treachery in the killing also prevented any mitigation of Beltran's criminal liability.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Beltran G.R. NO. 168051 SEPT 27, 2006 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Arya Stark
    236 views1 page
    The court found Honorato Beltran Jr. guilty of murdering Norman H. Concepcion. Several witnesses testified that Beltran repeatedly hacked Concepcion with a bolo along a road, while Beltran claimed self-defense. The court ruled there was no evidence of sufficient provocation or threat from Concepcion that would have justified or mitigated Beltran's actions. Any earlier altercation between the two was too remote to reasonably provoke Beltran to commit murder. The presence of treachery in the killing also prevented any mitigation of Beltran's criminal liability.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Law I

    Original Title

    People v Beltran

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court found Honorato Beltran Jr. guilty of murdering Norman H. Concepcion. Several witnesses testified that Beltran repeatedly hacked Concepcion with a bolo along a road, while Beltran claimed self-defense. The court ruled there was no evidence of sufficient provocation or threat from Concepcion that would have justified or mitigated Beltran's actions. Any earlier altercation between the two was too remote to reasonably provoke Beltran to commit murder. The presence of treachery in the killing also prevented any mitigation of Beltran's criminal liability.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Beltran G.R. NO. 168051 SEPT 27, 2006 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Arya Stark
    The court found Honorato Beltran Jr. guilty of murdering Norman H. Concepcion. Several witnesses testified that Beltran repeatedly hacked Concepcion with a bolo along a road, while Beltran claimed self-defense. The court ruled there was no evidence of sufficient provocation or threat from Concepcion that would have justified or mitigated Beltran's actions. Any earlier altercation between the two was too remote to reasonably provoke Beltran to commit murder. The presence of treachery in the killing also prevented any mitigation of Beltran's criminal liability.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE VS.

    BELTRAN

    G.R. NO. 168051

    SEPT 27, 2006

    FACTS:

    On 25 October 1999, at about 10:00 in the evening, several witnesses testified that the appellant Honorato Beltran Jr.
    repeatedly hacked Norman H. Concepcion with a bolo along Velasquez Road in Batangas City.

    Appellant’s version on the other hand, claims that the deceased was accompanied by several unidentified persons and
    shouted and insulted him. The latter also challenged him to a fight outside of their house. He tried to pacify Norman but
    the latter slapped the back of his head and pulled out an ice pick from his pocket. He retreated and used the bolo found in
    front of his house to defend himself. Appellant claimed that he hacked the deceased four consecutive times on the head
    but claims that it is only for self-defense. He then fled to his brother’s house in Bauan, Batangas, stayed that same night
    and hid the bolo.

    Appellant also claimed that on October 22, 1999, he was mauled by Norman near a sari-sari store; that Norman is taller
    than him since he is only 5'4 in height; that he was forced to kill Norman because the latter insulted him and his mother;
    and that he was on his way to Bauan City to surrender to police when he was apprehended by the barangay officers in Lipa
    City

    The RTC rendered found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. CA affirmed RTC decision
    with modification.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the deceased gave sufficient provocation or threat immediately preceding the act?

    RULING:

    Article 13 paragraph (4) of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person's criminal liability may be mitigated if there was
    a sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party which immediately preceded the crime. Before the
    same can be appreciated, the following elements must concur: (1) That the provocation or threat must be sufficient or
    proportionate to the crime committed and adequate to arouse one to its commission; (2) That the provocation or threat
    must originate from the offended party; and (3) That the provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime
    by the person provoked.

    Norman did not in any way provoke appellant into a fight on that fateful night. There was no argument or physical struggle
    that ensued between them shortly before appellant hacked Norman with a bolo. Norman was innocently walking along
    the road when, all of a sudden, appellant surfaced and hacked him in rapid succession. The alleged altercation between
    the two occurred much earlier (22 October 1999) as to reasonably and sufficiently incite the appellant to act the way he
    did. In the absence of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party, appellant's assertion of mitigating
    circumstance cannot be sustained. Moreover, and more importantly, this ordinary mitigating circumstance cannot offset
    the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery which is present in the instant case.

    You might also like