Criminal cases digested

Change Over Time: Christianitys Impact on Europe Christianity had spread its influence widely over the Mediterranean well before 1500. Many of the world’s major religions rose during the same time as Christianity, but Christianity didn’t stand out during those times. There were other religions such as Islam and Hinduism that were uniting their people more and contributing more to the world than Christianity was. The development of the Renaissance in Italy and the spreading of the Renaissance made Christianity a lot more popular.

The period from 1500 to 1700 marked a huge opportunity for Christianity, and the religion took dvantage of that and left its mark on Europe.

Although some cultural aspects remained the same and Christianity remained the dominant religion in Europe from 1500 to 1700, a lot of other cultural aspects, economics, and political characteristics changed due to Christianitys impact. Christianity continued to dominate Europe through the Renaissance period with little shifting to other religions; Christianity stayed pretty much the same, aside from differences in Catholic and Protestant groups.

Christianity remained a monotheistic religion, meaning that its followers believe in one god. Not only did this religion remain a major influence for the ordinary people of Europe, but it also influenced the artists and authors coming into the Renaissance. Christianity continued to be a huge source of power for the Pope and other religious leaders during this time; religion, essentially, gave these leaders more control and power.

These leaders set up churches all across their areas in Europe, which continued to spread the influence of Christianity even more.

Christianity remained a uniting source for the people which, in turn, led to making Europe a very rich and powerful force. Christianity remained a owerful force in Europe because a lot of the religious leaders were looking at continuing older Roman legacies. Even though Christianity developed after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church makes the claim of apostolic succession; they claim a unique authority over all other churches because they claim they have a common heritage with Roman Catholic Popes centuries before.

Because of historical significance and the need of wanting to bring back older Roman and Byzantine religious traditions, Christianity was able to continue to dominate Europe through the influence of the church during 1500 to 1700.

With so much power, different aspects of life in Europe wouldn’t remain the same. Because Christianity continued to remain the major source for power and influence in Europe, economic, political, and cultural changes were inevitable. Case: Recebido vs.

People Facts: Caridad Dolor mortgaged a certain property to her cousin, Aniceto Recibido, but did not execute a document on the mortgage but instead gave petitioner a copy of the Deed of Sale of the said property. Caridad Dolor went to redeem the said property but the petitioner refused to allow her to redeem her property and claim hat she had sold it to him the said property. Caridad Dolor verified from the Office of the Assessor in Sorsogon that there exists on its file a Deed of Sale which was allegedly executed by her and that the property was registered in the petitioner’s name.

A comparison of the signature of Dolor’s was made in other documents with that of in the said Deed of Sale and found that the signature was falsified. Dolor filed a complaint against the petitioner Anecito Recebido with the National Bureau of Investigation. Then, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon filed the information ndicting petitioner for Falsification of Public Document with the Trial Court. The trial court convicted the petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced him to an intermediate penalty and to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment. And to pay P5, OOO.

OO for damages and to vacate the land in question.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that the award for damages is deleted. The petitioner then raised his case before theSupremeCourt. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty for the falsification of a public document. Held: The Court is unable to discern any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeal when it affirmed the Judgment of the trial court and that the trial court did not commit any error in ordering the petitioner to vacate the subject property.

The instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Case: People vs. Sanchez Vivencio Malabanan, prosecution’s witness, went to the house of Mayor Antonio Sanchez. Ding Peradillas also arrived and then informed Sanchez of a birthday party that will take place near the residence of Peradilla’s where Nelson Penalosa will be attending. Mayor Sanchez then replied, “ Bahala na kayo mga anak.

Ayusin lang ninyo and trabaho” and left. Peradillas then immediately informed Luis Corcolon and Artemio Averion and relayed the message “ Ayos na ang pag-uusap at humanap na lang ng sasakyan. They then understood it as an order to kill Nelson Penalosa. Afterwards, Corcolon, Averion, and Peradillas made the arrangements and acquired two-way radios and a vehicle for the operation. After verifying that Nelson Penalosa was at the party, the three accused including Malabanan hopped into the car and pursued Penalosa’s Jeep firing at it using M-16 and Baby Armalite Rifles, executed in automatic firing mode.

As a result of the attack, Nelson Penalosa died alond side with his son, Rickson Penalosa. The accused interposed the defense of alibi and denial.

The trial court ruled that the accused conspired in committing the crime. Treachery was present, thereby qualifying the crime to murder. It appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, nighttime and use of motor vehicle.

The trial court considered the crime as a complex crime of double murder punishable under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code and each of the accused was sentence to reclusion perpetua with fine to pay damages. Accused Mayos Antonio Sanchez and Artemio Averion Jointly appealed from the decision to the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the act of shooting the victim using armalites in automatic firing mode constitutes a single act and, thus, the felonies resulting therefrom are considered as complex crimes. We ruled in negative and the court MODIFIES the decision of the RTC and finds accused-appellants Antonio Sanchez and Artemio Averion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder, and sentences each of them to suffer two penalties or reclusion perpetua, and each to pay Jointly and severally the respective heirs of the ictims.

At the time of the commission of the crime, the penalty for murder under Article 248 of the RPC was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Considering the presence of aggravating circumstances, the accused should be sentenced to death penalty to each murder.

However, in view of the constitutional proscription of death penalty at that time, each of the accused is sentenced to two penalties of reclusion perpetua. Case: People vs. Enriquez Jr.

Alexander Pureza and three other of his friends were having a conversation in front of the Barangay Hall where appellant Elpidio Enriquez Jr. rrived on board a tricycle driven by appellant Emilio Enriquez and told them not to run for he is an authority fgure.

He singled out Alexander Pureza and dragged him to the tricycle and forced him to board the same. Then they sped off. Pureza was never seen or heard again since then. Rogelio Andico, who was one of the three friends present during the abduction of Pureza, informed Pureza’s parents about the incident.

Feliciano Castro, also corroborated with Andico, s testimony about the abduction of Pureza that night. The appellants used alibi and denied involvement in the kidnapping but they ere found guilty as charged by the trial court and sentenced to indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 17 years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim for P50, OOO.

OO. Appellants appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court.

The appellate court did not apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law but imposed upon the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Then upon this decision, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty for the kidnapping of Alexander Pureza.

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting the appellants of the crime of kidnapping. We Join the lower courts in rejecting appellants’ alibi and we find that the guilt of the appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.