[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
147 views1 page

People V Babiera

Justo Babiera owned land that he sold with a right to repurchase to Basilio Copreros. When the repurchase period expired, Copreros took possession and leased the land to Severina Haro. One evening, as Haro and companions were returning to town, Babiera attacked Haro with a bolo and struck him twice, then shots were heard. At trial, Babiera claimed self-defense, saying Haro attacked him with a revolver, but there was no evidence to support this claim. The court also ruled that proving Haro's quarrelsome disposition required evidence of his general reputation, not specific acts. The trial court found Babiera guilty of murder and the ruling court agreed there was sufficient

Uploaded by

Ikko Esporna
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
147 views1 page

People V Babiera

Justo Babiera owned land that he sold with a right to repurchase to Basilio Copreros. When the repurchase period expired, Copreros took possession and leased the land to Severina Haro. One evening, as Haro and companions were returning to town, Babiera attacked Haro with a bolo and struck him twice, then shots were heard. At trial, Babiera claimed self-defense, saying Haro attacked him with a revolver, but there was no evidence to support this claim. The court also ruled that proving Haro's quarrelsome disposition required evidence of his general reputation, not specific acts. The trial court found Babiera guilty of murder and the ruling court agreed there was sufficient

Uploaded by

Ikko Esporna
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/ 1

People v Babiera 52 Phil 97 (1928)

FACTS: Justo Babiera was the owner of a land, he executed a contract of sale with the right
to repurchase in favor of Basilio Copreros. The period of repurchase expired, after which
Copreros took possession and leased the lands to Severina Haro.
Justo Babiera filed a complaint for recovery but this was dismissed for failure to state a
cause of action.
One evening, Haro and his companions were heading back to town. Suddenly, Babiera
sprang from the grass and struck Haro with a bolo. Haro turned his head and got another
blow on his forehead. Before the assailants left, two or three revolver shots were heard. After
they left, the companions of Haro went near him.

The trial court held them guilty of murder.

ISSUE: WON there is sufficient evidence to hold the appellants guilty?

RULING: Yes. The defense contended that Clemente Babiera only acted in self-defense after
Haro attacked and threatened him with a revolver and fired several shots at him. This,
however, was not proved by evidence. Defense also tried to prove that Haro had a
quarrelsome disposition. However, proof of such disposition must be of his general
reputation in the community and not an isolated and specific act, such as the accused tried
to prove. Thus, the lower court was correct in not admitting such proof.

You might also like