Scribd
Upload
63 views1 page

US v. Namit: Murder Appeal Ruling

The defendant was found guilty of murder by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment for striking the victim with a heavy stick. However, the Supreme Court found reasonable doubt that the parties were facing each other, so the proper offense was homicide without aggravating circumstances. Additionally, an attachment was levied against the defendant's property after an appeal was filed, based on concerns he would sell assets to avoid paying indemnity. The Supreme Court held the attachment was improper, as the remedy of attachment under Spanish law was abrogated and not available to enforce civil liability from a criminal prosecution according to Philippine law.

Uploaded by

Charisse Christianne Yu Cabanlit
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
63 views1 page

US v. Namit: Murder Appeal Ruling

The defendant was found guilty of murder by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment for striking the victim with a heavy stick. However, the Supreme Court found reasonable doubt that the parties were facing each other, so the proper offense was homicide without aggravating circumstances. Additionally, an attachment was levied against the defendant's property after an appeal was filed, based on concerns he would sell assets to avoid paying indemnity. The Supreme Court held the attachment was improper, as the remedy of attachment under Spanish law was abrogated and not available to enforce civil liability from a criminal prosecution according to Philippine law.

Uploaded by

Charisse Christianne Yu Cabanlit
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

US v.

Namit
FACTS:
This is an appeal brought to reverse a judgment of the CFI of Antique, adjudging the defendant
guilty of crime of murder sentencing him to cadena perpetua. (Namit struck him a blow on the
left frontal part of the head with a heavy stick).
Although the complaint charges treachery as a qualifying circumstance in the commission of the
crime, thus elevating the offense to the degree of murder, and although the Judge found that
this element was present in the commission of the offense, the SC is not satisfied with such
conclusion. There is a reasonable doubt as to whether the parties may not have been facing
each other when the blow was delivered.
The proper offense was homicide with no generic circumstance with a penalty of reclusion
temporal.
In connection with attachment, a lawyer appeared in court in the capacity of a private
prosecutor, representing the widow of the deceased, presented an affidavit showing that the
accused was selling his property in order to elude payment of any indemnity to which he would
be liable in case of conviction. An order was issued by the Court authorizing the attachment of
property value of 1,500 unless he should give a bond to answer in the amount. The attachment
was not immediately levied but after an appeal had been taken, the sheriff, levied the same
upon 5 parcels of land a house belonging to the accused.
ISSUE: Whether the attachment levied on the accused’s property was proper
HELD: No. the SC is of the opinion that Article 589 of the Law on Criminal Procedure of Spain
was abrogated by necessary implication upon the enactment of General Orders no. 58. The
remedy of attachment is not available as an aid to the enforcement of the civil liability incident to
the prosecution for crime.
These provisions contemplate the pendency of a civil action, and the remedy of attachment is
merely an auxiliary to such action. Section 795 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in its first para,
declares that the procedure in all civil actions shall be in accordance with the provisions of said
Code. And it is quite evident that the Legislature in adopting this Code could not have intended
to make its provisions in any respect applicable to the proceedings in a criminal prosecution.
The mere circumstance that a civil liability can be made the subject of recovery in a criminal
prosecution is not sufficient reason for holding that the remedy of attachment as designated for
use in a civil action is available in the criminal proceeding.

You might also like