Valenton, Francis Angelo T.

Criminal Law 2

1S

People vs. Sison (G.R. Nos. 108280-83)

Facts: The petitioners are: Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard De Los Santos, and
Joselito Tamayo. The respondents are the People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals. In
the case at bar, a rally was scheduled to be held at the Luneta by the Marcos loyalists on July 27,
1986. They applied for a permit to gather, but was denied by the authorities. However, they still
continued. Deputy Superintendent Edgar Dula Torres of the Western Police District asked the
leaders for their permit. But no permit could be produced. Leaving Col. Torres giving those 10
minutes to disperse. The leaders Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega asked for 30 minutes, but
was refused. The said Lozano then said towards his group and said "Gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng
mga Cory infiltrators." The police then pushed the crowd. Later on, loyalist of both Marcos and
Aquino had a commotion. A certain man in yellow named Salcedo was then pursued by Marcos
loyalists. They caught him and boxed and kick him. The said Aquino supporter then was able to
extricate himself, but was immediate pounced again. He was able to escape, but was badly
injured. Later on, he collapsed and lost consciousness, and died later on. The accused therein
was held liable as principals for the commission of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery.

Issue: Is the accused guilty for murder.

Held: The Supreme Court said that the herein appellants cannot be guilty of the death in a
tumultuous affray, as they allege. The Supreme Court said that in order to be held guilty of the
aforementioned crime, six elements must concur. These are: “1) there be several persons; (2) that
they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally; (3) these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused
and tumultuous manner; (4) someone was killed in the course of the affray; (5) it cannot be
ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and (6) that the person or persons who inflicted
serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified.” Such elements were lack. IT is
for the reason that it is clear that there are two definite groups. However, with respect to the
circumstance of treachery. Such circumstance was not proven. Hence, the herein appellant can
only be guilty for homicide.