Scribd
Upload
406 views2 pages

Case Digest - People vs. Cudal 506 Scra 466

1. On January 1, 1998 in Pangasinan, Pablo Cudal got into a fight with his 79-year old father Crispin after his father said he had no money for Pablo to continue his drinking. 2. Camilo Cudal, a relative living nearby, heard a commotion and found Crispin bleeding from the head. Crispin told Camilo that Pablo had hit him with a stone. 3. Crispin was then brought to his brother Segundino's house, where he also told Segundino that Pablo had struck him with a stone. 4. The court ruled that Camilo and Segundino's testimonies were

Uploaded by

Ella Kriziana Cruz
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
406 views2 pages

Case Digest - People vs. Cudal 506 Scra 466

1. On January 1, 1998 in Pangasinan, Pablo Cudal got into a fight with his 79-year old father Crispin after his father said he had no money for Pablo to continue his drinking. 2. Camilo Cudal, a relative living nearby, heard a commotion and found Crispin bleeding from the head. Crispin told Camilo that Pablo had hit him with a stone. 3. Crispin was then brought to his brother Segundino's house, where he also told Segundino that Pablo had struck him with a stone. 4. The court ruled that Camilo and Segundino's testimonies were

Uploaded by

Ella Kriziana Cruz
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 VS.

CUDAL 506 SCRA 466

Facts:

On January 1, 1998, at about 2am in province


of Pangasinan. The appellant, Pablo
Cudal, went home from a drinking spree with his relatives. He roused
his 79 yo father, the victim, Crispin Cudal to ask money so he could
go back to the drinking session and pay for the liquor that he
consumed.The victim replied that he had no money, and told appellant
that he was already drunk. This drew the two to a fight.
Camilo Cudal, who is 50 meters away, heard the commotion and immediately went to the place of the
place of the victim. There saw the latter sitting on his bed and wiping blood
oozing from his forehead.When asked about what happened, the victim
quickly replied that he quarreled with appellant and that he was hit
by him with a stone.

Camilo brought the wounded victim to the house of his (victim’s)


brother Segundino Cudal where first aid was applied on his wounds.
Segundino asked the victim what happened to him and the victim
answered, stating that he was struck with stone by his own son.

Issue:
1. WON the witnesses testimonies are inadmissable since they haven’t caught the actual crime scene.
2. WON the appellant’s intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime should be considered
as a mitigating circumstances.

Ruling:
1. No. ThatCamilo and Segundino were not eyewitnesses to the incident
does not render their testimonies inadmissible, for they may be
considered part of the res gestae, 29 an exception to the hearsay
rule. For the same to be considered part of the res gestae, the
following requisites must concur:(1) the principal act or res gestae
must be a startling occurrence; (2) the statement is spontaneous or
was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise a false
statement, and the statement was made during the occurrence or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto; and (3) the statement made
must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.

The victim’s information to Camilo and Segundino as to the material


facts was made immediately after the startling incident occurred. It
is as categorical as it is spontaneous and instinctive. It cannot be
concluded that in a very short span of time, taking into
consideration the ripe age of the victim, his relationship to
appellant, and the cruelty and suffering which immediately preceded
the confession, the victim had the opportunity to concoct the facts
surrounding the incident and its authorship. Besides, there appears
to be no reason or motive on the part of the victim to point his son
as the culprit if such were not indeed the truth.

2. Yes. Drunkenness is an alternative circumstance. It is aggravating


if the accused is a habitual drunkard. It is mitigating if it is
otherwise.
n. No evidence was presented to establish that he is a habitual
drunkard. It is a legal maxim that when there is doubt, the doubt
should be resolved in favor of the accused. This court[,] therefore,
believes that this should be taken as a mitigating circumstance,
which is favorable to the accused.”

You might also like