[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

People V Pugay

Pugay and Samson were accused of murdering a man during a town fiesta. Pugay poured gasoline on the man as others were tickling and teasing him. Samson then set the man on fire, burning him to death. The court found Pugay guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence for failing to consider the dangerous consequences of his actions while intoxicated. The court did not find Samson intended to kill the man, so he was not guilty of murder, but was still criminally liable for homicide for intentionally setting the man on fire with gasoline, an act that led to his death, even if his intent was merely to burn his clothes as part of "fun-making" and

Uploaded by

Mikhel Beltran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views2 pages

People V Pugay

Pugay and Samson were accused of murdering a man during a town fiesta. Pugay poured gasoline on the man as others were tickling and teasing him. Samson then set the man on fire, burning him to death. The court found Pugay guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence for failing to consider the dangerous consequences of his actions while intoxicated. The court did not find Samson intended to kill the man, so he was not guilty of murder, but was still criminally liable for homicide for intentionally setting the man on fire with gasoline, an act that led to his death, even if his intent was merely to burn his clothes as part of "fun-making" and

Uploaded by

Mikhel Beltran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People v.

Pugay
[G.R. No. 74324. November 17, 1988.]

FACTS:
On May 19, 1982, a town fiesta was held. There were many rides and one was a ferris
wheel. Sometime after midnight of said date, Eduardo Gabion (witness) was sitting in the
ferris wheel and reading a comic book. Later, Pugay and Samson, the accused, with
serveral companions arrived, appearing to be drunk. They made the deceased dance by
tickling him with a piece of wood.

Not content with what they were doing with the deceased the accused Pugay suddenly
took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel and poured its contents
on the body of the former. Gabion told Pugay not to do so while latter was already in the
process of pouring the gasoline. Then, the accused Samson set Miranda on fire making a
human torch out of him.

Issue: WON Pugay and Samson are guilty of MURDER

HELD: NO.

A. Pugay charged with HOMICIDE THROUGH RECLESS IMPRUDENCE

Pugay knew that the can contained gasoline. The stinging smell of the flammable have
not escaped his notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the
diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may
be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased.
[Court agreed with the Solicitor General]

In U.S. vs. Maleza, et al., 14 Phil. 468, 470, this Court ruled as follows:

"A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his
acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct,
then through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such
results as anyone might foresee and for acts which no one would have
performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise his own person,
rights and property, all those of his fellow- beings, would ever be exposed
to all manner of danger and injury."

B. Samson charged with HOMICIDE

Solicitor General in his brief contends that "his conviction of murder is proper
considering that his act in setting the deceased on fire knowing that gasoline had just
been poured on him is characterized by treachery as the victim was left completely
helpless to defend and protect himself against such an outrage". The Court does not
agree.

There is entire absence of proof in the record that the accused Samson had some reason to
kill the deceased before the incident. On the contrary, there is adequate evidence showing
that his act was merely a part of their fun-making that evening. For the circumstance of
treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate and the culprit employed means, methods,
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.

There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew very well that the liquid poured on
the body of the deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have
committed the act of setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit
of doubt, it can be conceded that as part of their fun-making he merely intended to set the
deceased's clothes on fire. This does not relieve him of criminal liability (Art. 41).

1
criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.

You might also like