Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Digest G.R. No. 173822 Salvador Atizado and Salvadormonreal vs. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Jaja Gk
    3K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Salvador Atizado for murder but modified the penalty for Salvador Monreal. While the lower courts correctly found both petitioners guilty of murdering Rogelio Llona based on eyewitness testimony, Monreal was a minor below 18 years old at the time of the crime in 1994. As a minor, Monreal should have received a lighter penalty under the law. Given that Monreal had already been detained for over 16 years, exceeding the maximum penalty for a minor, the Court ordered his immediate release.

    Original Description:

    Digest G.R. No. 173822 Salvador Atizado and Salvadormonreal vs. People of the Philippines

    Original Title

    Digest G.R. No. 173822 Salvador Atizado and Salvadormonreal vs. People of the Philippines

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Salvador Atizado for murder but modified the penalty for Salvador Monreal. While the lower courts correctly found both petitioners guilty of murdering Rogelio Llona based on eyewitness testimony, Monreal was a minor below 18 years old at the time of the crime in 1994. As a minor, Monreal should have received a lighter penalty under the law. Given that Monreal had already been detained for over 16 years, exceeding the maximum penalty for a minor, the Court ordered his immediate release.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3K views2 pages

    Digest G.R. No. 173822 Salvador Atizado and Salvadormonreal vs. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Jaja Gk
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Salvador Atizado for murder but modified the penalty for Salvador Monreal. While the lower courts correctly found both petitioners guilty of murdering Rogelio Llona based on eyewitness testimony, Monreal was a minor below 18 years old at the time of the crime in 1994. As a minor, Monreal should have received a lighter penalty under the law. Given that Monreal had already been detained for over 16 years, exceeding the maximum penalty for a minor, the Court ordered his immediate release.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    173822 October 13, 2010

    SALVADOR ATIZADO and SALVADORMONREAL,


    Petitioners, vs.
    PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,
    Respondent.
    FACTS:
    Petitioners Atixado and Monreal areaccused of killing and murdering one Rogelio Llonaon April 1994. It
    was said that both petitionersbarged in on the house of one Desder, where thevictim was a guest and
    suddenly shot at Llona withtheir guns. After the shooting, they fled.For their defense, the petitioners
    interposed that they were at their family residence and drinkinggin.The RTC convicted Atizado and
    Monreal for thecrime of murder and sentenced them withreclusion perpetua. On appeal to the CA, the
    court affirmed the conviction in 2005.It is important to note that SalvadorMonreal was a minor at the
    time of the commissionof the crime.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the lower courts erred infinding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonabledoubt for
    murder.What is the penalty to be imposed on Monreal, aminor during the time of the commission?
    HELD/RATIO: Yes, conviction affirmed.However, the penalty imposed on Monreal issuspended.
    The witness positive identification of thepetitioners as the killers, and her declarations onwhat each of
    the petitioners did when theymounted their sudden deadly assault against Llonaleft no doubt
    whatsoever that they had conspiredto kill and had done so with treachery.Under Article 248 of the RPC,
    the penalty formurder is
    reclusion perpetua to death. There being no modifying circumstances, the CA correctlyimposed the
    lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on Atizado. But reclusion per petua was not the correct penalty for
    Monreal due to his being a minor over15 but under 18 years of age.The RTC and the CA did not
    appreciate Monrealsminority at the time of the commission of themurder probably because his birth
    certificate wasnot presented at the trial. Yet, it cannot be doubtedthat Monreal was a minor below 18
    years of agewhen the crime was committed on April 18, 1994.His counter-affidavit, the police blotter
    and trialrecords show that Monreal was a minor at the timeof the commission. Monreals minority was
    legallysufficient, for it conformed with the normssubsequently set under Section 7 of Republic Act No.
    9344:Section 7.
    Determinat ion of Age.

    - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the
    rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. In all
    proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned
    shall exert all efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law. Monreal has been
    detained for over 16 years, that is, from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the present. Given
    that the entire period of Monreals detention should be credited in the service of his sentence,
    pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act No. 9344, the revision of the penalty warranted his immediate
    release from the penitentiary.

    You might also like