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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    People V Hassan

    Uploaded by

    Inna
    1) Usman Hassan was accused of murdering Ramon Pichel Jr. by stabbing him based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Jose Samson, who was an employee of the victim's father. 2) However, the medical examiner's findings contradicted key details of Samson's testimony, and there was no established motive between the accused and victim. 3) Considering the lack of corroborating evidence, contradictions in testimonies, and absence of a clear motive, the court found that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Usman Hassan of murder charges.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Hassan

    Uploaded by

    Inna
    33 views2 pages
    1) Usman Hassan was accused of murdering Ramon Pichel Jr. by stabbing him based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Jose Samson, who was an employee of the victim's father. 2) However, the medical examiner's findings contradicted key details of Samson's testimony, and there was no established motive between the accused and victim. 3) Considering the lack of corroborating evidence, contradictions in testimonies, and absence of a clear motive, the court found that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Usman Hassan of murder charges.

    Original Title

    People v Hassan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Usman Hassan was accused of murdering Ramon Pichel Jr. by stabbing him based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Jose Samson, who was an employee of the victim's father. 2) However, the medical examiner's findings contradicted key details of Samson's testimony, and there was no established motive between the accused and victim. 3) Considering the lack of corroborating evidence, contradictions in testimonies, and absence of a clear motive, the court found that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Usman Hassan of murder charges.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Hassan

    Uploaded by

    Inna
    1) Usman Hassan was accused of murdering Ramon Pichel Jr. by stabbing him based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Jose Samson, who was an employee of the victim's father. 2) However, the medical examiner's findings contradicted key details of Samson's testimony, and there was no established motive between the accused and victim. 3) Considering the lack of corroborating evidence, contradictions in testimonies, and absence of a clear motive, the court found that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Usman Hassan of murder charges.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

    USMAN HASSAN y AYUN, respon


    Facts
    ● Usman Hassan was accused of murder for stabbing to death Ramon Pichel, Jr. y Uro.
    ● Profile of Pichel – manager of the sand and gravel business of his father
    ● Profile of Hassan – illiterate, 15-year-old pushcart cargador; belonged to the Samal tribe which did not see importance
    of registering births and deaths (Important to note because he was not classified as a youthful offender under Article
    189 of PD No 603, as amended by PD No 1179, given that his age was approximated between 14 to 21 years old by the
    dentist who examined him. Trial court observed him based on personal appearance to be about 18 years old at the time
    of the crime.)
    ● Lone eyewitness for the prosecution who provided testimony against Hassan is Jose Samson, employed at the time of
    the killing at the sand and gravel business of the father of the deceased, and had blood relationship with the deceased.
    ● Testimony of Samson:
    o Samson was with Pichel at about 7:00 in the evening of July 23, 1981, when they went to buy mangoes at Fruit
    Paradise near the Barter Trade Zone in Zamboanga City.
    o Samson saw a person stab Pichel who was seated at his red Honda motorcycle parked about two or three
    meters from the fruit stand where Samson was selecting mangoes. He recounted the stabbing as thus: “While
    Ramoncito Pichel, Jr. was holding the motorcycle with both of his hands, the assailant come from behind, held
    his left hand and stabbed him from behind on his chest while the victim was sitting on the motorcycle.”
    o Samson saw assailant stabbing Pichel once, after which the assailant ran towards the PNB Building.
    o Samson claimed to know assailant by face, but not by name. He described the assailant as wearing a white,
    short-sleeved t-shirt and maong pants, but “he did not see if the aggressor was wearing shoes,” that the
    assailant stabbed Ramon with a knife but “he did not exactly see what kind of knife it was, and he did not see
    how long the knife was.” In the sworn statement, he described assailant as someone who was “sporting a
    semi- long hair, dressed in White Polo-Shirt (Short sleeve), maong pant, height to more or less 5’5, Dark
    Complexion.”
    ● There was a confrontation between the accused and Samson in the funeral parlor arranged by the police investigator
    and prosecution witness, Corporal Carpio. On direct examination, Carpio said that Usman was brought alone to Samson
    for confirmation; however, on cross-examination, he made a turnabout saying that accused was identified in a “police
    line-up.”
    ● RTC ruling: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the Crime of MURDER.

    Ratio Decidendi

    W/N the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

    No.

    We hold that the evidence for the prosecution in its entirety does not satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable
    doubt required by the Constitution, the law, and applicable jurisprudence to convict an accused person. The said evidence
    denies us the moral certainty which would allow us to pronounce, without uneasiness of conscience. In evaluating the
    worth of the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution against the denial and alibi of the accused, value
    judgment must not be separated from the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence. When the evidence for
    the prosecution and the evidence for the accused are weighed, the scales must be tipped in favor of the latter. This is
    because of the constitutional presumption of innocence the accused enjoys as a counterfoil to the awesome authority of
    the State that is prosecuting him. The element of doubt, if reasonable in this case, must operate against the inference of
    guilt the prosecution would draw from its evidence. That evidence, as it happens, consists only of the uncorroborated
    statement of the two policemen which, as previously observed, is flawed and therefore suspect.

    The testimony of Jose Samson, the lone eyewitness, is weak and unconvincing. And so with the evidence sought to be
    introduced by Police Corporal Carpio. We discover, for example, that the expert testimony of the medico-legal officer of
    the National Bureau of Investigation, Dr. Valentin Bernalez, presented by the prosecution, contradicted, on material
    points, the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Jose Samson. While Samson averred on the witness stand that he saw the
    assailant stab the deceased “from behind on his chest” only once, the NBI medicolegal officer identified two stab wounds
    one “at the front portion of the chest at the level and third rib, (sic) and another stab wound located at the left arm
    posterior aspect.” The same medical expert also concluded from the nature and location of the chest wound, which was
    the cause of death, that the same was “inflicted on the victim while the alleged accused was in front of him.”

    And now as a penultimate observation, we could not help but note the total absence of motive ascribed to Usman for
    stabbing Ramon, a complete stranger to him. While, as a general rule, motive is not essential in order to arrive at a
    conviction, because, after all, motive is a state of mind, procedurally, however, for purposes of complying with the
    requirement that a judgment of guilty must stem from proof beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of motive on the part
    of the accused plays a pivotal role towards his acquittal. This is especially true where there is doubt as to the identity of
    the culprit as when “the identification is extremely tenuous,” as in this case.

    Ruling
    WHEREFORE, the decision is hereby REVERSED, and the accused Usman Hassan y Ayun is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
    His release from confinement is hereby Ordered, unless he is held for another legal cause. With costs de oficio.

    You might also like