Death Caused In A Tumultuous Affray
On Criminal Law
Tumultuous Affray |
Death Caused In A Tumultuous Affray
Article 251.
Death caused in a tumultuous affray. - When, while several persons, not composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used violence upon the person of the victim.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be several persons;
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally;
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner;
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. That 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.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries
2. if it is not known who inflicted serious physical injuries on the deceased, all persons who used violence upon the person of the victim.
Tumultuous affray exists when at least 4 persons take part in it.
When there are 2 identified groups of men who assaulted each other, there is no tumultuous affray.
The person killed need not be a participant in the affray
Those who used violence are liable for death caused in a tumultuous affray only if it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased
“Tumultuous” in Article 153 – more than three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence
Tumultuous affray is a commotion in a confused manner to an extent that it would not be possible to identify who the killer is if death results, or who inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person or
persons who used violence are known.
If there is conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
If nobody could still be traced to have employed violence upon the victim, nobody will answer. The crimes committed might be disturbance of public order, or if participants are armed, it could be
tumultuous disturbance, or if property was destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.
1. That there be several persons;
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally;
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner;
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. That 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.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries
2. if it is not known who inflicted serious physical injuries on the deceased, all persons who used violence upon the person of the victim.
Tumultuous affray exists when at least 4 persons take part in it.
When there are 2 identified groups of men who assaulted each other, there is no tumultuous affray.
The person killed need not be a participant in the affray
Those who used violence are liable for death caused in a tumultuous affray only if it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased
“Tumultuous” in Article 153 – more than three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence
Tumultuous affray is a commotion in a confused manner to an extent that it would not be possible to identify who the killer is if death results, or who inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person or
persons who used violence are known.
If there is conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
If nobody could still be traced to have employed violence upon the victim, nobody will answer. The crimes committed might be disturbance of public order, or if participants are armed, it could be
tumultuous disturbance, or if property was destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.
Bar Exam Question (1997)
Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997)
During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds. He died a day after. B, C, D, and E were proven to be participants in the "rumble", each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A and for what?
Suggested Answer:
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and having been proven to have inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are criminally liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray. B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
Bar Exam Question (2003)
Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003)
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became unruly, guns were fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound that did not cause the deceased's death nor materially contribute to it. It was B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why?
Suggested Answer:
No, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his liability should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123 [1990])
Alternative Answer:
Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability should be for slight physical injury only, because he fired his gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the night club and therefore, without intent to kill. B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased may not be imputed to A because conspiracy cannot exist when there is a free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for their respective act.