A case digest in Constitutional Law 2 involving defenses for Unreasonable searches and seizures.Full description
Full description
Admin (4-6)
Public Offcr & AdminFull description
DigestFull description
Borja vs Comelec Case DigestFull description
Constitutional Law II - A , Atty. Tagarda-Mabilen
Case
law, obligations, oblicon, case digestFull description
case digest if alih vs castroFull description
law
Oblicon Case Digest
Classroom use; EvidenceFull description
G.R. No. L-51369, July 29, 1987Full description
case digest
succession case digestFull description
1US vs Valdez (Case Digest)Full description
Lee vs Tambago AC No. 5281Full description
People vs. Sy Pio Facts: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning of September 3, 1949. Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian an !ose Sy. Sy Pio entere the store at "11 #isericoria Sta $r%& #anila an starte firing 'ith a .4" caliber pistol. First to be shot 'as !ose Sy. (pon seeing Sy Pio fire at !ose Sy, Tan as)e *'hat is the iea+‖ there%pon, Sy Pio t%rne aro%n an fire at him as 'ell. Tan 'as shot at his right sho%ler an it passe thro%gh his bac). e ran to a room behin the store to hie. e 'as still able to hear g%nshots from Sy Pio-s pistol, b%t after'ars, Sy Pio ran a'ay. Tan Siong Kiap 'as bro%ght to the $hinese eneral ospital 'here his 'o%n 'as treate. e staye there from Septenber 3/10, 1949. e 'as release %pon his re%est an against physician-s a2ice an 'as re%este to ret%rn for f%rther treatment 'hich he i " times in a perio of 1 ays. is 'o%n 'as completely heale he spent P3 for hospital an octor-s fees. Sy Pio 'as fo%n by the $onstab%lary in Tarlac. 5omotan, a police from #anila Police 6epartment 'ent to Tarlac to get Sy Pio. e amitte to 5omotan that he shot the 2ictims an hane him the pistol %se in the shooting. 7ccoring to Sy Pio-s eclaration, some months prior to the incient, he 'as employe in a resta%rant o'ne by Ong Pian. Sy Pio-s 'ife, 8icenta 'as also employe by Ong Pian-s partner. hen he trie to borro' money from Ong Pian fpr his 'ife-s sic) father, Ong Pian only lent him P1. his 'ife 'as able to borro' P0 from her employer. 7fter'ars, efenant/appellant 'as ismisse from his 'or). Ong Pian presente a list of Sy Pio-s ebts an these 'ere e%cte from his 'ife-s monthly salary. Sy Pio co%l not remember inc%rring s%ch ebts. 7s s%ch, he 'as resentf%l of Ong Pian-s con%ct. n Tan Siong Kiap-s case, a fe' months before Sept3, Sy Pio 'as able to reali&e the s%m of P; an he p%t his money in a place in his room. The ne%gment of con2iction. 5o'er co%rt erre in sentencing him to pay an inemnity of P3". 6efenant/appellant sho%l only be fo%n g%ilty of less serio%s physical in>%ries instea of fr%strate m%rer. el: 1. Sy Pio ha to t%rn aro%n to shoot Tan Siong Kiap. 0. There is s%fficient proof. ?(ncontraicte testimony of the 2ictim, amissions mae to 5omotan, testimony of physician, etc.@ 3. 7ssignment of error m%st be ismisse. Offene party spent P3 for the hospital fees. 4. The fact that he 'as able to escape 'hich appellant m%st ha2e seen, m%st ha2e pro%ce in the min of the efenant/appellant that he 'as not able to hit his 2ictim at a 2ital part of the boy. The efenant appellant )ne' that he ha not act%ally performe all acts of eecti2e phase of the acts of e