Scribd
Upload
112 views1 page

People vs. Anod

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Samuel Anod for murdering Erlando Costan with a bolo and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without parole. Anod argued he acted under compulsion of irresistible force and fear for his life. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding Anod failed to sufficiently show he acted without freedom. While duress can be an exempting circumstance, the threat must be present, imminent, and of a nature to induce well-grounded fear of death or harm. In this case, Anod had a chance to escape or engage in combat as he was also armed, so his claim of acting due to fear was untenable.

Uploaded by

Alecesse Vim Casinabe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views1 page

People vs. Anod

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Samuel Anod for murdering Erlando Costan with a bolo and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without parole. Anod argued he acted under compulsion of irresistible force and fear for his life. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding Anod failed to sufficiently show he acted without freedom. While duress can be an exempting circumstance, the threat must be present, imminent, and of a nature to induce well-grounded fear of death or harm. In this case, Anod had a chance to escape or engage in combat as he was also armed, so his claim of acting due to fear was untenable.

Uploaded by

Alecesse Vim Casinabe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

People vs.

Anod
G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009, Third Division, J. Nachura

Facts:

On May 16, 1997, at Bislig, Surigao del Sur, Philippines, Samuel Anod and Lionel Lumbayan
stabbed and hacked to death Erlando Costan with a pointed bolo, to the damage and prejudice of the
heirs of the said Costan.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Anod and Lumbayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder and sentenced them of reclusion perpetua and to pay the widow of Costan damages. The
accused assailed RTC’s decision and argues that the act was against his will and done under the
compulsion of an irresistible force and uncontrollable fear for his life. Moreover, accused contends that
the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed RTC’s decision wit modification, imposing reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole and ordered him to pay heirs of Costan civil indemnity, moral damages,
exemplary damages, and actual damages.

Issues:

Whether CA erred in not considering the exempting circumstances for irresistible force and
uncontrollable fear?

Held:

No, Appellant failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its
assailed Decision. Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability
if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom.

However, we held that for such a defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear, or intimidation
must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done.

A threat of future injury is not enough. In this case, as correctly held by the CA, based on the
evidence on record, the accused had the chance to escape Lumbayan's threat or engage Lumbayan in
combat, as the accused was also holding a knife at the time. Thus, the allegation of accused rose due to
fear or duress is untenable.

You might also like