Scribd
Upload
246 views1 page

People vs. Bagsit

Angelito Bagsit shot and killed Pepito Sison outside of Sison's home on September 12, 1999 using an unlicensed firearm. Two witnesses, Richard Sison and Zenaida Bagsit Aguilar, identified Angelito Bagsit as the shooter. Bagsit claimed he was drinking elsewhere at the time of the shooting. The court found Bagsit guilty of murder qualified by treachery and aggravating circumstances of using an unlicensed firearm and committing the crime in the victim's home. The court sentenced Bagsit to death and ordered damages paid to the victim's heirs.

Uploaded by

Sherwin C Tapalla
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
246 views1 page

People vs. Bagsit

Angelito Bagsit shot and killed Pepito Sison outside of Sison's home on September 12, 1999 using an unlicensed firearm. Two witnesses, Richard Sison and Zenaida Bagsit Aguilar, identified Angelito Bagsit as the shooter. Bagsit claimed he was drinking elsewhere at the time of the shooting. The court found Bagsit guilty of murder qualified by treachery and aggravating circumstances of using an unlicensed firearm and committing the crime in the victim's home. The court sentenced Bagsit to death and ordered damages paid to the victim's heirs.

Uploaded by

Sherwin C Tapalla
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.

Bagsit

Facts: At about 8:20 pm on September 12, 1999, appellant Angelito Bagsit shot Pepito
Sison using an unlicensed firearm while the latter was then closing the front door of their
house. Among the two witnesses who testified, the deceased son, Richard Sison, clearly
identified the assailant, Angelito Bagsit, as he was at that same night time was looking out
of the window of their house and saw Angelito, who was then behind the window, pointing
a gun at his father, and the latter later on dropped on the cement floor after a gunshot.
Another corroborating witness, Zenaida Bagsit Aguilar, the deceased daughter-in-law,
testified that on the same night, she saw the appellant Angelito, toting a gun and cocked it,
passed by her house. Before she could warn her father about what she saw, she heard a
shot rang out. Without having seen the actual shooting, she was rather certain that it was
the appellant who shot her father-in-law. On the other hand, appellant claimed that he was,
at that time, having a drinking spree at the house of one Marcos Barte, with the latter and
one Dante Bagsit, and that he left said house by 11pm. Upon review of the statements, the
RTC Batangas decided against the accused and sentenced him with death penalty and
ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased for moral damages, funeral and similar
expenses. Hence, the appellant asked for the automatic review of the RTC Batangas
decision.

Issue: WON, the accused is guilty of the crime of murder?

Ruling: Yes, the Court found the accused guilty of the crime of murder qualified by
treachery, with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and the
generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and imposed on him the supreme penalty of
DEATH. Treachery qualified the killing because the appellant surreptitiously positioned
himself behind the window of the house of the unsuspecting victim while the latter had his
back turned, and fired his gun, thus eliminating any risk from any defense from the victim.
The use of unlicensed firearm was appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because RA
8294 provides that the use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide shall be
considered not a separate crime but merely a special aggravating circumstance. Dwelling
was likewise aggravating because the accused attacked the victim inside the latter’s own
house when he could have very well committed the crime without necessarily
transgressing the sanctity of the victim’s house.

The award for damages to the heirs of Pepito Sison was modified as follows: P50K as
civil indemnity, P50K as moral damages, P25K as exemplary damages, and P25K temperate
damages, in lieu of actual damages, due to lack of sufficient evidence.

You might also like