Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 263 views

    People V Jaca

    Uploaded by

    Ray Mond
    Severa Jaca and Proceso Rasalan were charged with killing Severa's 3-day old child. Two eyewitnesses and Severa's father-in-law testified that Proceso wrapped the baby in a cloth, suffocating it, to hide Severa's dishonor. The lower court acquitted Severa but convicted Proceso of infanticide, sentencing him to life in prison. Proceso appealed, claiming the witnesses were not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the crime was established and Proceso committed it, as evidenced by the doctor's examination and credible witness testimony.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Jaca

    Uploaded by

    Ray Mond
    263 views2 pages
    Severa Jaca and Proceso Rasalan were charged with killing Severa's 3-day old child. Two eyewitnesses and Severa's father-in-law testified that Proceso wrapped the baby in a cloth, suffocating it, to hide Severa's dishonor. The lower court acquitted Severa but convicted Proceso of infanticide, sentencing him to life in prison. Proceso appealed, claiming the witnesses were not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the crime was established and Proceso committed it, as evidenced by the doctor's examination and credible witness testimony.

    Original Title

    20. People v Jaca

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Severa Jaca and Proceso Rasalan were charged with killing Severa's 3-day old child. Two eyewitnesses and Severa's father-in-law testified that Proceso wrapped the baby in a cloth, suffocating it, to hide Severa's dishonor. The lower court acquitted Severa but convicted Proceso of infanticide, sentencing him to life in prison. Proceso appealed, claiming the witnesses were not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the crime was established and Proceso committed it, as evidenced by the doctor's examination and credible witness testimony.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Jaca

    Uploaded by

    Ray Mond
    Severa Jaca and Proceso Rasalan were charged with killing Severa's 3-day old child. Two eyewitnesses and Severa's father-in-law testified that Proceso wrapped the baby in a cloth, suffocating it, to hide Severa's dishonor. The lower court acquitted Severa but convicted Proceso of infanticide, sentencing him to life in prison. Proceso appealed, claiming the witnesses were not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the crime was established and Proceso committed it, as evidenced by the doctor's examination and credible witness testimony.

    Copyright:

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

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

    VS. SEVERA JACA AND PROCESO RASALAN, DEFENDANTS. PROCESO


    RASALAN, APPELLANT

    G. R. No. 34866, August 18, 1931

    Facts:

    Severa Jaca and Proceso Rasalan were charged before the lower court of Tayabas for
    feloniously putting to death a 3-day old child whom Severa Jaca had given birth to.

    Two eyewitnesses, Aurea Zabella and Agapita Navaja, both of them related to the
    appellant, the first by consanguinity and the second by affinity, testify that Proceso
    Rasalan wrapped up the baby in a cloth which asphyxiated it—resulting in its death.
    Tomas Jaca, the appellant's father-in- law, testified that when the latter handed to
    him the corpse of the newly-born child in order that he might secretly throw it into
    the river, Proceso Rasalan revealed to him that he had killed it in order to conceal
    the dishonor of Severa Jaca, which cast a reflection upon them, for Severa was the
    witness Tomas' daughter, and the defendant's sister-in-law.

    Even though the evidence for the prosecution pointed to Proceso Rasalan as the
    offender, Margarita Jaca, the latter's wife, affirmed that it was Aurea Zabella, the
    midwife who attended Severa Jaca in her delivery, who caused the death of the child.
    However, this accusation of Margarita Jaca against Aurea Zabella was not supported
    by the evidence of record. The appellant himself did not blame Aurea for the death
    of the infant, for he assured in his testimony that he had only heard the child cry
    once, and when Aurea Zabella, who was assisting the woman in labor, went to attend
    to the babe, she found it already dead. Also, The defendant questioned the veracity
    of the three witnesses, especially of the two last, Agapita Navaja and Tomas Jaca,
    alleging that they had a grievance against him and his family.

    The Court of First Instance of Tayabas acquitted Severa Jaca, but convicted Proceso
    Rasalan of the crime charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment, the accessories
    of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, in the sum of P1,000, and one-
    half the costs.

    Proceso Rasalan appealed from the sentence, making the following assignments of
    error:

    1. In basing the judgment upon the testimony of the witnesses for the
    prosecution, namely Aurea Zabella, Agapita Navaja, and Tomas Jaca.
    2. In finding the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
    3. In admitting as evidence against the appellant, Exhibit C of the prosecution,
    being the defendant's alleged confession.
    4. In sentencing the accused.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime
    charged.

    Ruling:

    NO, the lower court did not err in finding the accused guilty of the crime of
    infanticide.

    The Supreme Court had held that it has been established in the record that the crime
    charged was committed, and that the defendant committed it. The infant really died,
    through asphyxiation, was amply shown by the testimony of Doctor Potenciano, who
    examined the exhumed corpse, thus corroborating the other witnesses for the
    prosecution. They gave credit to the witnesses for the prosecution because the
    grievance that the defendants claimed the witnesses of the prosecution had towards
    the accused was not sufficient to make the witnesses tell a falsehood in accusing their
    own relative of so serious crime.

    Inasmuch as the accused was not an ascendant of the dead child, he incurred,
    according to the law (art. 409, par. 3, Penal Code) the penalty for murder and was
    guilty of the crime charged. The appealed decision was affirmed.

    You might also like