5.1 Form - Resolution (Murder)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHLIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF ___________
_____________ CITY
(Name)
_________________________,
Complainant,
-versus - NPS DOCKET NO. _____________
For: MURDER
(Name)
____________________________, Promulgated:
Respondent. ________________
-------------------------------------------- x
RESOLUTION
This resolves the complaint for Murder filed by complainant, (name of

complainant) against respondent, (name of respondent).
Facts according to Complainant
According to Lanie Gaspar, complainant’s witness, in her Affidavit dated 26 May

2016 (Annex “D” to the Complaint-Affidavit) on 09 April 2016 at around 7:30 in the
morning, she heard that herein victim, Rodolfo Gimaldo (nicknamed “Dolfo”), was
taken by Barangay Tanods Barangay Hall of Guindara, Samar. Fearing that Dolfo might
have been in trouble, she immediately followed them but found the gate of the Barangay
Hall closed. Thus, she decided to wait outside. At around 8:00 in the morning, Dolfo
came out of the Barangay Hall, followed by some Barangay Tanods from a distance. It
was then that respondent (name of respondent) suddenly struck Dolfo’s head. Dolfo
then fell to the ground, and the Barangay Tanods behind him immediately rushed to his
aid, boarded him into a tricycle, and brought him to the nearest hospital. Later, she
learned that Tino also died.
Complainant, (name of complainant), for her part, per her Complaint-Affidavit

dated 26 May 2001, admitted that on the date and time in question, she did not witness
the alleged murder of her husband, Dolfo, as she was working at that time. However, at
around that time, she did receive a phone call reporting to her that Dolfo was taken by
the Barangay Tanods because he was a suspect in a rape incident. She answered the
caller in this wise, “Hayaang ipakulong si Dolfo kung sya’y talagang nagkasala”.
Several minutes later, she received a text message that her husband is already dead.
In support of her allegations, complainant submitted the following documents:

Certificate of Death (Annex “A” of the Complaint-Affidavit), Request for Autopsy (Annex
“B”), Spot Report and photographs of the crime scene (Annex “C”), and the Affidavit of
Gaspar.
Facts according to respondent
Respondent, (name of respondent), for his part, counter-alleged that around 7:00
in the morning of 09 April 2016, he learned that Dolfo taken by Barangay Tanods to the
Barangay Hall for allegedly raping his (Florendo’s) 16-year old daughter, Caren, who
was mentally-disabled. He then immediately searched for Dolfo and, upon seeing him
near the Barangay Hall, confronted him and asked how Dolfo could have done such a
treacherous thing, knowing that Caren was mentally disabled. In reply, Dolfo said:
“Pasensya na pare, pero pumayag naman siya na mag sex kami dahil girlfriend ko
siya”. Respondent was then immediately consumed by anger, passion, or obfuscation,
that he instinctively picked up a rattan stick and hit Dolfo once on the head, causing
Dolfo to collapse to the ground. Respondent Florendo then fled the area out of fear.
Later, he learned that Dolfo was brought to the hospital but eventually died due to
traumatic head injury and cardio-respiratory failure. Respondent added that he had no
intention of commit so grave a wrong and that his act was merely the immediate
vindication of a grave offense done by Dolfo to his daughter.
In her Affidavit dated 09 June 2016 (Annex “1” to respondent’s Counter-

Affidavit), Gina Florendo, respondent’s wife, corroborated the material allegations of
respondent’s Counter-Affidavit. She added that, on 09 April 2016 at around 6:00 in the
morning, her minor daughter, Caren, confided to her that she was raped three (3) times
by Dolfo. Thus, she immediately reported this matter to the barangay, and it was duly
entered in the Barangay Blotter. She was then told to wait as the barangay personnel
would immediately take action. Around 7:00 in the morning of the same day, Dolfo was
brought to the Barangay Hall. While being investigated, Dolfo asked for Gina’s
forgiveness, but she got angry and started to hit him. Finally, they were pacified by the
Barangay Tanods, who then decided to deliver Dolfo to the police. As they were going
out, it was then that respondent met Dolfo and confronted him. After hearing Dolfo’s
answer, Gina saw her husband hit Dolfo on the head with a stick. Thereafter, Dolfo was
brought to the hospital. In the meantime, Gina went to the police where she was given a
Request for Genital Examination for Caren.
Attached to Gina’s Affidavit are the following documents: Barangay Blotter

(Annex “A” of Gina’s Affidavit), PGH Appointment Slip (Annex “B”), Request for Genital
Examination (Annex “C”), Provisional Medico-Legal Report (Annex “D”), and PGH
prescription forms (Annex “E”).
The issue submitted for resolution by this Honorable Office is, based on the given
facts, is there probable cause to indict respondent for Murder.
Findings of this Office
This office finds that there is not enough evidence to indict respondent for
Murder. However, this office finds that there exists probable cause to indict respondent
for the crime of Homicide.
It is beyond dispute that respondent’s act of hitting the victim with a rattan stick
on the head was the proximate cause of the latter’s death. While, respondent’s sudden
attack of Dolfo, then unarmed, can be said to have been attended by treachery (thus,
qualifying the crime to Murder), the evidence on record clearly confirms that the factual
circumstances obtaining in this case prompted respondent to act on passion or
obfuscation.
There are two (2) requisites for the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation to apply:
(1) That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a
condition of the mind; and
(2) That this act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.1
In this case, both requisites are attendant. First, Dolfo’s alleged admission of
having carnal knowledge of Arnold’s mentally-disabled minor daughter, Caren, was
sufficient to produce such passion or obfuscation on the part of Arnold. Second, upon
confirming what Dolfo had done to his daughter, Arnold immediately acted out of such
passion or obfuscation and struck Dolfo.
The presence of passion or obfuscation negates the qualifying circumstance of

treachery.2 Thus, the charge against respondent must necessarily be downgraded from
Murder to Homicide. It should be noted that respondent hit the victim on the head
which is the proximate cause of the latter’s death. Consequently, respondent must be
indicated for Homicide as probable cause exists to charge him and hold him for trial.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned recommends that an
Information for the crime of Homicide be filed against respondent, (name of
respondent), with the proper court as there exists probable cause to charge him and
hold him for trial.
SO ORDERED.
(place), (date).
(Name of Investigating Prosecutor)
(designation)
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:
(Name)
Division Chief
APPROVED:
1
Luis B. Reyes, the Revised Penal Code/Criminal Law Book 1 citing People v. Alanguilang (52 Phil 663)
2
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code/Criminal Law Book 1 Citing People v Wong (18 CAR 934)
(Name)
Prosecutor General or
Provincial/City Prosecutor
Copy furnished:

5.1 Form - Resolution (Murder)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.1 Form - Resolution (Murder)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.1 Form - Resolution (Murder)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHLIPPINES

This resolves the complaint for Murder filed by complainant, (name of

Facts according to Complainant

According to Lanie Gaspar, complainant’s witness, in her Affidavit dated 26 May

Complainant, (name of complainant), for her part, per her Complaint-Affidavit

In support of her allegations, complainant submitted the following documents:

In her Affidavit dated 09 June 2016 (Annex “1” to respondent’s Counter-

Attached to Gina’s Affidavit are the following documents: Barangay Blotter

Findings of this Office

The presence of passion or obfuscation negates the qualifying circumstance of

You might also like

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