Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 533 views

    Ibabao V People

    Uploaded by

    James Evan I. Obnamia
    (1) Ibabao was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for a hit-and-run accident where he failed to stop and render aid to the victim. The trial court and appellate court increased his penalty based on his failure to help the victim. (2) The Supreme Court held that while Ibabao's failure to help must increase his penalty under the law, it could not be used to impose the next higher penalty degree because it was not alleged in the information as required. (3) Failure to help is not an aggravating circumstance but the law still mandates increasing the penalty for such failure. The Court affirmed the conviction but did not increase the penalty beyond what was charged.

    Copyright:

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

    Ibabao V People

    Uploaded by

    James Evan I. Obnamia
    533 views2 pages
    (1) Ibabao was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for a hit-and-run accident where he failed to stop and render aid to the victim. The trial court and appellate court increased his penalty based on his failure to help the victim. (2) The Supreme Court held that while Ibabao's failure to help must increase his penalty under the law, it could not be used to impose the next higher penalty degree because it was not alleged in the information as required. (3) Failure to help is not an aggravating circumstance but the law still mandates increasing the penalty for such failure. The Court affirmed the conviction but did not increase the penalty beyond what was charged.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Ibabao v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Ibabao was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for a hit-and-run accident where he failed to stop and render aid to the victim. The trial court and appellate court increased his penalty based on his failure to help the victim. (2) The Supreme Court held that while Ibabao's failure to help must increase his penalty under the law, it could not be used to impose the next higher penalty degree because it was not alleged in the information as required. (3) Failure to help is not an aggravating circumstance but the law still mandates increasing the penalty for such failure. The Court affirmed the conviction but did not increase the penalty beyond what was charged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    533 views2 pages

    Ibabao V People

    Uploaded by

    James Evan I. Obnamia
    (1) Ibabao was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence for a hit-and-run accident where he failed to stop and render aid to the victim. The trial court and appellate court increased his penalty based on his failure to help the victim. (2) The Supreme Court held that while Ibabao's failure to help must increase his penalty under the law, it could not be used to impose the next higher penalty degree because it was not alleged in the information as required. (3) Failure to help is not an aggravating circumstance but the law still mandates increasing the penalty for such failure. The Court affirmed the conviction but did not increase the penalty beyond what was charged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    IBABAO v PEOPLE

    GR# L-36957
    Petitioner: Aniceto Ibabao
    Respondents: People of the Philippines and the
    Honorable Court of Appeals
    Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.
    Date: September 28, 1984

    injured victim of the accident will aggravate the


    penalty.

    TOPIC

    ISSUES/HELD

    Criminal Negligence

    (1) WON the failure of the petitioner to lend


    aid to his victim justifies the imposition of the
    penalty next higher in degree even though
    such circumstances was not alleged in the
    information - NO

    DOCTRINE
    Failure to render aid to accident victim cannot
    be
    considered
    a
    generic
    aggravating
    circumstance.
    It is not an aggravating
    circumstance but still increases the penalty as
    mandated in Art 365.
    (SHORT VERSION)
    Patalinghog witnessed a hit-and-run accident
    and recognized Ibabao as the driver of the jeep.
    Ibabao was convicted by the TC and CA
    increased his penalty for his failure to lend aid to
    the victim. SC held that even though his failure
    to give aid must increase his penalty, the same
    should be alleged in the information.
    FACTS
    Jose Patalinghog, Jr., a bystander, who testified
    that on April 30, 1967, at about 11:00 p.m.,
    while he was at Bankerohan terminal, he clearly
    saw an owner-type jeep bump a person; that
    the said jeep did not stop; that upon request of
    a security guard, he gave chase, wrote down the
    plate No. 57675, overtook it, and recognized
    the driver as the petitioner Aniceto Ibabao,
    and thereafter reported the incident to the Matina
    Police Sub-Station.
    Ibabao was charged with the crime of Homicide
    thru Reckless Imprudence.
    What was contested here is that the petitoners
    failure to lend aid on the spot to the fatally

    TC and CA rendered a verdict of conviction.


    However rendered the maximum penalty for
    Ibabaos failure to stop and lend aid to the
    victim.

    RATIO
    (1) First, criminal negligence is punished in
    Article 365.
    Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. Any
    person who, by reckless imprudence, shall
    commit any act which, had it been intentional,
    would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the
    penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
    to prision correccional in its medium period; if
    it would have constituted a less grave felony, the
    penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
    medium periods shall be imposed; if it would
    have constituted a light felony, the penalty
    of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
    imposed.
    Any person who, by simple imprudence or
    negligence, shall commit an act which would
    otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer
    the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and
    maximum periods; if it would have constituted a
    less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor
    in its minimum period shall be imposed.
    xxx xxx xxx
    In the imposition of these penalties, the courts
    shall exercise their sound discretion, without
    regard to the rules prescribed in article sixtyfour.
    The provisions contained in this article shall
    not be applicable:

    1. When the penalty provided for the offense is


    equal to or lower than those provided in the first
    two paragraphs of this article, in which case the
    courts shall impose the penalty next lower in
    degree than that which should be imposed, in the
    period which they may deem proper to apply.
    2. When, by imprudence or negligence and
    with violation of the Automobile Law, the death
    of a person shall be caused, in which case the
    defendant shall be punished by prision
    correccional in its medium and maximum
    periods.
    xxx xxx xxx
    The penalty next higher in degree to those
    provided for in this article shall be imposed
    upon the offender who fails to lend on the
    spot to the injured parties such help as may
    be in his hands to give. (As amended by Rep.
    Act No. 1790).
    PETITIONER: Last paragraph is not applicable
    to offenses under paragraph 2 of the same
    article because of the opening statement that
    the provisions contained in this article shall not
    be applicable, implying that paragraph 2 is in
    a class by itself and is not affected by the rest of
    the provisions of the same Article.
    COURT: Flawed argument. The proviso that
    "the provisions contained in this article shall
    not be applicable" clearly refers to the
    preceding paragraphs. Paragraphs "1" and "2"
    are exceptions to the application of the said
    preceding paragraphs under the circumstances

    mentioned. The last paragraph on failure to


    lend aid on the spot necessarily applies to all
    situations envisioned in the said Article
    whenever there is an injured party.
    HOWEVER, the court found merit in the
    petitioners contention that the same is
    inapplicable to him because it was not alleged in
    the information. The same must be alleged in
    the information unlike an ordinary
    aggravating circumstance which even if not
    alleged in the information can be taken into
    account if proved at the trial without objection.
    We are neither inclined to consider such
    failure to lend assistance as a generic
    aggravating circumstance that would justify
    the imposition of the penalty in its maximum
    period, since it is not an aggravating
    circumstance listed in Article 14 of the Revised
    Penal Code. (NOT AN AGGRAVATING
    CIRCUMSTANCE BUT STILL INCREASES
    THE PENALTY A DEGREE HIGHER AS
    MANDATED IN ART 365)
    DECISION
    Judgment affirmed.
    NOTE
    recantation
    O

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy