002 People V Pugay (110) Grp 2.pdf

PEOPLE v. PUGAY

Deceased with mental disability made fun of by defendants. Pugay poured gasoline on deceased, Samson lit deceased on fire. Pugay guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence; Samson guilty of homicide.

No. L-74324 Chris Nuevo

November 17, 1988

Medialdea, J.

Law110 – Crim

Group 2

FACTS • • • • • •

Deceased Miranda was a 25yo person with mental disability During a town fiesta in Cavite, accused Pugay and Samson arrived drunk, and saw Miranda walking Accused started to make fun of Miranda, made him dance by tickling him with a piece of wood Pugay took a can of gasoline under the engine of the ferris wheel and poured the contents on the body of Miranda Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. Body of deceased was still aflame when police officer arrived at the scene; Miranda was later rushed to the hospital but died afterwards.

ISSUES/HELD I.

WON Pugay and Samson are responsible for the death of Miranda. // Yes, Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence; Samson is guilty of homicide.

RATIONALE I.

II.

Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. a. It was clear that Pugay and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased. b. Respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts is individual and not collective. c. Pugay must have known that in the can was gasoline based on the smell. d. He failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased. e. Art 365: “…he is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon.” Samson is guilty of homicide. a. No doubt Samson knew that the liquid poured on the body was gasoline and flammable, for he would not have committed the act of setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise. b. Giving him benefit of the doubt, it can be conceded that he merely intended to set the deceased’s clothes on fire. (LOL) c. Burning the clothes would cause at the very least some kind of physical injury. d. Guilty of homicide, with mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong.