Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

13.4 Romera vs. People G.R. No. 151978.

July 14, 2004


Facts Petitioner and his family were having dinner in their house at around seven oclock in the evening. Thereafter, they
went to bed. While lying in bed, they heard one Roy Mangaya-ay call etitioner and his wife, asking if they had beer and a
fighter for sale. !e did not answer Roy because he knew that Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for etitioner but when
the latters wife told him that etitioner was already aslee, he told her to wake her husband u. Petitioner went down the
house and asked who was at the door. Just as !e ope"e# t!e #oor $or Roy, Roy t!rust !%s &olo at !%m. !e
successfully arried the bolo and asked Roy what it was all about. Roy answered he would kill etitioner. Petitioner tried to
revent Roy from entering, so he ushed the door shut. "s Roy 'as !ac(%") at t!e 'all, etitioners wife held the door
to allow etitioner to e#it in another door to face Roy. *e !urle# a sto"e at Roy, '!o #o#)e# %t. Roy rus!e# to !%m
a"# !ac(e# !%m, &ut !e parr%e# t!e &lo'. Pet%t%o"er )rapple# $or t!e &olo a"# sta&&e# Roy %" t!e stomac!.
Wounded, Roy begged etitioner for forgiveness. "ccording to etitioner, he ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill him.
The trial court discounted etitioners story of self-defense. $t found that when etitioner got hold of the bolo, there was no
more danger to his life. Petitioner was convicted of frustrated homicide, taking into consideration the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Petitioner aealed to the %ourt of "eals, which also affirmed the trial courts decision. &ndeterred, etitioner filed the
instant etition for review on the sole ground that both the RT% and the %ourt of "eals erroneously failed to aly "rticle
'( )*+
,
of the Revised Penal %ode. Petitioner contends that the victim rovoked him to a fit of anger when the latter woke
him u and thrust a bolo at him without warning as etitioner oened the door. Moreover, by hacking and destroying the
bamboo wall of his house, and endangering the lives of his children, the victim also obfuscated his thinking and reasoning
rocesses, says the etitioner.
+,,-. "re the mitigating circumstances of rovocation and assion or obfuscation resent in this case-
*el# The .ureme %ourt held that while both the RT% and the %ourt of "eals did not categorically state who started the
attack, it can be reasonably gleaned from their decisions that it was the victim who initiated the aggressive encounter.
Thrusting his bolo at etitioner, threatening to kill him, and hacking the bamboo walls of his house are, in our view,
sufficient rovocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and
children are in danger. Petitioner stabbed the victim as a result of those rovocations, and while etitioner was still in a fit
of rage. There was sufficient rovocation and the circumstance of assion or obfuscation attended the commission of the
offense.
$t must, however, be stressed that rovocation and assion or obfuscation are not two searate mitigating circumstances.
Well-settled is the rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as
one mitigating circumstance. /rom the facts established in this case, it is clear that both circumstances arose from the
same set of facts aforementioned. !ence, they should not be treated as two searate mitigating circumstances.
0onetheless, the %ourt held that since the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is also resent, "rticle '( )*+ of
the Revised Penal %ode should be alied.
1ecision2 Petitioner "RT&R3 R3M4R" is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate enalty of si# )'+ months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to four )(+ years and two )5+ months of rision correccional, as ma#imum. !e is also 3R14R41 to ay
the rivate offended arty P,6,7',.,* as actual damages, and P,8,888.88 as attorneys fees. %osts de oficio.
1
.

Вам также может понравиться