ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND OTHER

SPECIAL SITUATIONS
Absolutory causes are those where the
act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment there is no penalty
imposed.
a. ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
Ways and means are
resorted to for the
purpose of trapping
and capturing the
lawbreaker in the
execution of his
criminal plan
The instigator
practically induces the
would-be accused into
the commission of the
offense and himself
becomes a co-principal.
The means originate
from the mind of the
criminal.
The law enforcer
conceives the
commission of the
crime and suggests to
the accused who
adopts the idea and
carries it into
execution.
A person has
planned or is about
to commit a crime
and ways and means
are resorted to by a
public officer to trap
and catch the
criminal.
A public officer or a
private detective
induces an innocent
person to commit a
crime and would arrest
him upon or after the
commission of the
crime by the latter.
Not a bar to the
prosecution and
conviction of the
lawbreaker.
The accused must be
acquitted.
People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tn! "#$%#&
Facts: amson was the chief of customs
secret service in !ebu and Natividad was the
former collector of customs. "e was instructed
to make sure that the shipment containing
opium shall be unloaded in the country. "e
went along the plan and then he informed the
#hilippine !onstabulary of all that had taken
place and they discussed a plan to capture the
opium owners.
Held: The mere fact that the chief of
customs secret service pretended to agree to a
plan for smuggling illegally imported opium
through the customhouse$ in order the better to
assure the sei%ure of said opium and the arrest
of its importers$ is no bar to the prosecution
and conviction of the accused.
amson did not induce nor instigate the
accused to import the opium but merely
pretended to have an understanding with the
collector of customs. There is nothing immoral
in this or against the public good which should
prevent the government from prosecuting and
punishing the culprits$ for this is not a case
where an innocent person is induced to commit
a crime merely to prosecute him$ but it is
simply a trap set to catch a criminal.
PEOPLE v. LUA CHU AND UY SE TIENG &'(
#hil. )) *+,-+./
Ba'(!)ound o* Ca+e, 0n Nov. +,1,$ 2y e
Tieng$ was the consignee of the hipments of
0pium coming from "ongkong$ who
represented agents of the real 0wners of
hipments of 0pium containing -$1'1 tins. "e
collaborated w3 amson 4 Natividad of the
!ustoms by paying them an amount of #(5 for
the opium to be released safely from !ustoms.
0n 6ec. +,1,$ upon arrival of the hipment of
0pium in the ports of !ebu$ 2y e Tieng
informed amson that the former consult the
real owners on how to proceed the payment of
#(5 4 will come over to amson house on 6ec.
+7$ +,1, to inform the decision of the owners.
0n the same day amson informed the
!onstabulary represented by !aptain
8uencose9o 4 the #rovincial :iscal requesting a
stenographer to take down the conversation
between amson 4 2y e Teung.
0n the night of 6ec. +7$ +,1,$ !aptain
8uencose9o and a stenographer named
;umapao from a law firm and hid themselves
behind the curtains in the house of amson to
witness the conversation between amson$ 2y
e Teung and <ua !hu.
!aptain 8uencose9o 4 ;umapao noted the ff.
important facts=
+. 2y e Teung informed amson that <ua
!hu was one of the owners of the 0pium.
1. <ua !hu informed amson that aside
from him$ there were co-owners named Tan
and another located in Amoy.
-. <ua !hu promised to pay the #($>>>
upon delivery of the opium from the
warehouse of 2y e Tieng.
). A !ustoms !ollector had a conversation
before when amson was on vacation in
?urope$ with <ua !hu and agreed on the
business of shipping the 0pium.
The following morning 2y e Tieng and
companion$ 2y Ay presented papers to amson
4 !aptain 8uencose9o showed up 4 caught
them in the act 4 arrested the two !hinese.
The !onstabulary then arrested <ua !hu 4
confiscated #'>5 worth of 0pium *-$1'1 tins..
-a'.+ o* Ca+e, An Appeal was made by 2y e
Tieng 4 <ua !hu 4 made +> assignments of
errors made by the T! in its 9udgment.
Appellan./+
Pon. o*
De*en+e
Held
;uan amson
induced the
defendants to
import the
opium.
+. A public official shall be
involved in the crime if=
"e induces a person
to commit a crime for
personal gain
6oes not take the
necessary steps to sei%e the
instrument of the crime and
to arrest the offenders before
he obtained the profits in
mind.
"e obtained the
profits in mind even through
afterwards does take the
necessary steps sei%e the
instrument of the crime 4 to
arrest the offenders.
1. ?ven though ;uan amson
smoothed the way for the
introduction of the prohibited
drugs$ the ff should be noted
that held amson not guilty
for the crime=
The accused have
already planned and
actually ordered the opium
without the consent or
participation of ;uan
amson.
6id not help the accused
to successfully implement
there plan rather$ amson
assured the sei%ure of the
imported drug and the
arrest of the smugglers.
Trial 9udge
refusal of
exclusion of
;uan amson
in the witness
stand even
though he
was already
dismissed
Not one of the means
prescribed in section -)1 of the
!ode of !ivil #rocedures
from the
!ustoms
secret service
@n accepting
the transcript
taken down
by ;umapao
as the true 4
correct
conversation
between ;uan
amson 4 2y
e Tieng
+. The transcript contains
certain admissions made by
the defendants.
1. tenographer attested that it
was faithfully taken down.
-. !orroborated by statement
of ;uan tatement in the
court.
Con'ludn! Re0a)(+,
En.)ap0en.
+. The practice of entrapping persons into
crime for the purpose of instituting criminal
prosecutions
1. @t is a scheme or technique ensuring the
apprehension of the criminals by being in the
actual crime scene.
-. The law officers shall not be guilty to the
crime if he have done the following=
a. "e does not induce a person to
commit a crime for personal gain or is not
involved in the planning of the crime.
b. 6oes take the necessary steps to
sei%e the instrument of the crime and to
arrest the offenders before he obtained
the profits in mind.
In+.!a.on, This is the involvement of a law
officer in the crime itself in the following
manners=
a. "e induces a person to commit a
crime for personal gain
b. 6oesnAt take the necessary steps
to sei%e the instrument of the crime 4 to
arrest the offenders before he obtained the
profits in mind.
c. "e obtained the profits in mind
even through afterwards does take the
necessary steps sei%e the instrument of the
crime and to arrest the offenders.
PEOPLE v. DORIA &->+ !BA ((C *+,,,./
Two civilian informants informed the #N#
Narcom that one D;un was engaged in illegal
drug activities and the Narcom agents
decided to entrap and arrest D;unE in a buy-
bust operation.
0n the day of entrapment$ #0- Fanlangit
handed D;unE the marked bills and D;unE
instructed #0- Fanlangit to wait for him
while he got the mari9uana from his
associate.
When they met up$ D;unE gave #0-
something wrapped in plastic upon which
#0- arrested D;unE. They frisked ;un but did
not find the marked bills on him. D;unE
revealed that he left the money at the house
of his associate named DnenethE
They wen to NenethAs house. #0- Fanlangit
noticed a carton box under the dinin table
and noticed something wrapped in plastic
inside the box.
uspicious$ #0- entered the house and took
hold of the box and found that it ha +> bricks
of what appeared to be dried mari9uana
leaves.
imultaneously$ #0+ 8adua recovered the
marked bills from Neneth. The policemen
arrested Neneth and took both her and ;un$
together with the co%$ its contents and the
marked bill and turned them over to the
investigator at headquarters$
;un was then learned to be :lorencio 6oria
while Neneth is Giolata Haddao.
They were both convicted feloniously selling$
administering and giving away to another ++
plastic bags of suspected mari9uana fruiting
tops$ in violation of B.A ()1'$ as amended by
BA 7(',
I++ue, W0N Gioleta Haddao is liable
?ntrapment is recogni%ed as a valid defense
that can be raised by an accused 4 partakes
the nature of a confession 4 avoidance.
American federal courts and state courts
usually use the Dsub9ectiveE or Dorigin of
intentE test laid down in orrells v. 2.. to
determine whether entrapment actually
occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the
accusedAs predisposition to commit the
offense is charged$ his state of mind and
inclination before his initial exposure to
government agents.
Another test is the ob9ective test where the
test of entrapment is whether the conduct of
the law enforcement agenst was likely to
induce a normally law-abiding person$ other
than one who is ready and willing$ to commit
the offense.
The ob9ective test in buy-bust operations
demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly 4 adequately
shown. !ourts should look at all factors to
determine the predisposition of an accused
to commit an offense in so far as they are
relevant to determine the validty of the
defense of inducement.
@n the case at bar$ Haddao was not caught
red-handed during the buy-bust operation to
give ground for her arrest uner ec. 'a of
Bule ++-. he was not committing any crime.
!ontrary to the finding of the T!$ there was
no occasion at all for Haddao to flee from the
policement to 9ustify her arrest in Dhot
pursuitE
Neither could her arrest ne 9ustified under
second instance of Dpersonal knowledgeE in
Bule ++- as this must be based upon
probable cause which means an actual belief
or reasonable grounds for suspicion. Haddao
was arrested solely on the basis of the
alleged indentification made by her co-
accused. #0- Fanlangt$ however$ declared in
his direct examination that appellant 6oria
named his co-accused in response to his
query as to where the marked money was.
6oria did not point to Haddao as his associate
in the drug business$ but as the person with
whom he lfet the marked bills. This
identification does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that Haddao conspired with 6oria
in pushing drugs$ @f there is no showing that
the person who effected the warrantless
arrest had$ in his own right$ knowledge of the
acts implicating the person arrested to the
perpetration of a criminal offense$ the arrest
is legally ob9ectionable.
:urthermore$ the fact that the box containing
about ( kilos of mari9uana was found in
HaddaoAs house does not 9ustify a finding
that she herself is guilty of the crime
charged.
The prosecution thus had failed to prove that
Haddao conspired with 6oria in the sale of
the said drug. Thus$ Haddao is acquitted
a. E--ECT O- PARDON
RPC1 A).. 2%. Effect of pardon by the
offended party. I A pardon of the offended
party does not extinguish criminal action
except as provided in Article -)) of this !odeJ
but civil liability with regard to the interest of
the in9ured party is extinguished by his
express waiver.
R.A. No. 3%4%. An.5Rape La6 o* #$$7.
A).'le 2885C. Effect of Pardon - The
subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed.
@n case it is the legal husband who is the
offender$ the subsequent forgiveness by the
wife as the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty. Provided, That
the crime shall be extinguish or the penalty
shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab
initio.
A pardon by the offended party does not
extinguish criminal action because a crime is an
offense against the tate. @n criminal cases$ the
intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited
to being witnesses for the prosecution.
!ompromise does not extinguish criminal
liability.
The offended party in crimes of adultery
and concubinage cannot institute criminal
prosecution$ if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders.
- the pardon here may be implied$ as
continued inaction of the offended party after
learning the offense.
- both offenders must be pardoned by
the offended party.
9. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
A).. 8"%&. - There is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a
felony directly or over acts$ and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than this own spontaneous
desistance.
A).. 2:. Accessories who are exempt
from criminal liability. ; The penalties
prescribed for accessories shall not be
imposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses$ ascendants$
descendants$ legitimate$ natural$ and adopted
brothers and sisters$ or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees$ with the single
exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph + of the next
preceding article.
A).. 2<7. Death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. I Any legally married
person who having surprised his spouse in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person$ shall kill any of them or both
of them in the act or immediately thereafter$
or shall inflict upon them any serious physical
in9ury$ shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
@f he shall inflict upon them physical
in9uries of any other kind$ he shall be exempt
from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable$ under
the same circumstances$ to parents with
respect to their daughters under eighteen
years of age$ and their seducer$ while the
daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or
facilitate the prostitution of his wife or
daughter$ or shall otherwise have consented
to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not
be entitled to the benefits of this article.
A).. 23:. Qualified trespass to
dwelling. ; Any private person who shall
enter the dwelling of another against the
latterKs will shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding +$>>> pesos.
@f the offense be committed by means of
violence or intimidation$ the penalty shall be
prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine not exceeding
+$>>> pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not
be applicable to any person who shall enter
anotherKs dwelling for the purpose of
preventing some serious harm to himself$ the
occupants of the dwelling or a third person$
nor shall it be applicable to any person who
shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or
9ustice$ nor to anyone who shall enter cafes$
taverns$ inn and other public houses$ while
the same are open.
A).. %%2. Persons exempt from
criminal liability. I No criminal$ but only
civil liability$ shall result from the commission
of the crime of theft$ swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the
following persons=
+. pouses$ ascendants and
descendants$ or relatives by affinity in the
same line.
1. The widowed spouse with respect to
the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed
into the possession of anotherJ and
-. 8rothers and sisters and brothers-in-
law and sisters-in-law$ if living together.
The exemption established by this
article shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the crime.
A).. %<<. Prosecution of the crimes of
adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, rape and acts of
lasciiousness. I The crimes of adultery
and concubinage shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended
spouse.
The offended party cannot institute
criminal prosecution without including both
the guilty parties$ if they are both alive$ nor$
in any case$ if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction$ abduction$ rape or
acts of lasciviousness$ shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended
party or her parents$ grandparents$ or
guardian$ nor$ in any case$ if the offender has
been expressly pardoned by the above named
persons$ as the case may be.
@n cases of seduction$ abduction$ acts
of lasciviousness and rape$ the marriage of
the offender with the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him. The
provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals$ accomplices
and accessories after the fact of the above-
mentioned crimes.
d. ACTS NOT CO=ERED BY LA> AND IN
CASE O- E?CESSI=E PUNISHMENT
A).. 4. Duty of the court in
connection with acts which should be
repressed but which are not coered by
the law, and in cases of excessie
penalties. I Whenever a court has
knowledge of any act which it may deem
proper to repress and which is not punishable
by law$ it shall render the proper decision$
and shall report to the !hief ?xecutive$
through the 6epartment of ;ustice$ the
reasons which induce the court to believe that
said act should be made the sub9ect of
legislation.
@n the same way$ the court shall submit
to the !hief ?xecutive$ through the
6epartment of ;ustice$ such statement as may
be deemed proper$ without suspending the
execution of the sentence$ when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this !ode
would result in the imposition of a clearly
excessive penalty$ taking into consideration
the degree of malice and the in9ury caused by
the offense.
%. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Fitigating circumstances are those
which$ if present in the commission of the
crime$ do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability$ but serve only to reduce the
penalty.
They are based on the diminution of
either freedom of action$ intelligence or intent
or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
CLASSES O- MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
#. ORDINARY MITIGATING
- Those mentioned in subsections + to +>
of Art. +-.
2. PRI=ILEGED MITIGATING
A).. 83. Penalty to be imposed upon a
person under eighteen years of age. I
When the offender is a minor under eighteen
years and his case is one coming under the
provisions of the paragraphs next to the last
of Article C> of this !ode$ the following rules
shall be observed=
+. 2pon a person under fifteen but over
nine years of age$ who is not exempted from
liability by reason of the court having
declared that he acted with discernment$ a
discretionary penalty shall be imposed$ but
always lower by two degrees at least than
that prescribed by law for the crime which he
committed.
1. 2pon a person over fifteen and
under eighteen years of age the penalty next
lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed$ but always in the proper period.
A).. 8$. Penalty to be imposed when the
crime committed is not wholly
excusable. I A penalty lower by one or two
degrees than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable
by reason of the lack of some of the
conditions required to 9ustify the same or to
exempt from criminal liability in the several
cases mentioned in Article ++ and +1$
provided that the ma9ority of such conditions
be present. The courts shall impose the
penalty in the period which may be deemed
proper$ in view of the number and nature of
the conditions of exemption present or
lacking.
L #rivileged mitigating circumstances
which are applicable only to particular crimes=
+. Art. 1(C$ par. -. Goluntary release of
the person illegally detained within - days
without the offender attaining his purpose and
before the institution of criminal action. The
penalty is one degree lower.
1. Art. ---$ par. -. Abandonment without
9ustification of the spouse who committed
adultery. The penalty is one degree lower.
ORDINARY MC PRI=ILEDGED MC
usceptible of being
offset by any
aggravating
circumstance
!annot be offset by
aggravating
circumstance
@f not offset by
aggravating
circumstance$
produces the effect of
applying the penalty
provided by law for
the crime in its min
period in case of
divisible penalty
The effect of imposing
upon the offender the
penalty lower by one
or two degrees than
that provided by law
for the crime.
LL N0T?= Fitigating circumstances only reduce
the penalty but do not change the nature of the
crime.
A).. #%. !itigating circumstances. I The
following are mitigating circumstancesJ
+. Those mentioned in the preceding
chapter$ when all the requisites necessary to
9ustify or to exempt from criminal liability in
the respective cases are not attendant.
1. That the offender is under eighteen
year of age or over seventy years. @n the case
of the minor$ he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. C>.
-. That the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
). That sufficient provocation or threat
on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act.
'. That the act was committed in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony *delito.$ his
spouse$ ascendants$ or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.
(. That of having acted upon an
impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily
surrendered himself to a person in authority
or his agents$ or that he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecutionJ
C. That the offender is deaf and dumb$
blind or otherwise suffering some physical
defect which thus restricts his means of
action$ defense$ or comm)unications with his
fellow beings.
,. uch illness of the offender as would
diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of
the consciousness of his acts.
+>. And$ finally$ any other
circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above mentioned.
Pa). #5 THOSE MENTIONED IN THE
PRECEDING CHAPTER1 >HEN ALL THE
RE@UISITES NECESSARY TO AUSTI-Y OR
TO E?EMPT -ROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN
THE RESPECTI=E CASES ARE NOT
ATTENDANT.
The circumstances of justification or
exemption which may give place to mitigation$
because not all the requisites necessary to
9ustify the act or to exempt from criminal
liability in the respective cases are attendant$
are the ff=
1. elf-defense
7. Finority over ,
and
2. 6efense of Belatives
under +' years of
age
3. 6efense of trangers
C. !ausing in9ury by
mere
4. tate of necessity
accident
5. #erformance of duty
,. 2ncontrollable fear
(. 0bedience to order
of superior
INCOMPLETE AUSTI-YING CIRCUMSTANCE
+. "ncomplete self#defense,
defense of relaties, defense of
stranger
@n these - classes of defense$ 2N<AW:2<
AHHB?@0N must always be present. @t is an
indispensable requisite.
#ar. + of Art. +- is applicable only when
unlawful aggression is present but the other 1
requisites are not present in any of the cases
referred to in circumstances number +$ 1 and -
or Art. ++.
?x. When the one making defense against
unlawful aggression used unreasonable means
to prevent or repel it$ he is entitled to a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
2."ncomplete justifying circumstance
of aoidance of greater eil or injury.
B?M2@@T? under par. ) of Art. ++=
a. That the evil sought to be avoided
actually existsJ
b. That the in9ury feared be greater
than that done to avoid itJ
c. That there be no other practical
and less harmful means of preventing it.
Avoidance of greater evil or in9ury is a
9ustifying circumstance if all the three
requisites mentioned in par. ) of Art. ++ are
present. 8ut if any of the last two requisites is
lacking$ there is only a mitigating circumstance.
-. "ncomplete justifying
circumstance of performance of duty.
B?M2@@T? under par. ' of Art. ++=
a. That the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or officeJ and
b. That the in9ury caused or offense
committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance
of such duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
@n #eople v. 0anis$ the ! considered
one of the 1 requisites as constituting the
ma9ority. @t seems that there is no ordinary
mitigating circumstance under Art. +- par. +
when the 9ustifying or exempting circumstance
has 1 requisites only.
INCOMPLETE E?EMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
+. "ncomplete exempting
circumstance of minority oer $ and under
%& years of age.
B?M2@@T? under par. - of Art. +1=
a. That the offender is over , and under
+' years oldJ and
b. That he does not act with
discernment.
@f the minor over , and under +' years of age
acted with discernment$ he is entitled only to a
mitigating circumstance$ because not all the
requisites to exempt from criminal liability are
present.
1. "ncomplete exempting
circumstance of accident.
B?M2@@T? under par. ) of Art. +1 =
a. A person is performing a lawful actJ
b. With due careJ
c. "e causes an in9ury to another by
mere accidentJ and
d. Without fault or intention of causing
it.
@f the 1
nd
requisite and +
st
part of

the )
th
requisite are absent$ the case will fall under Art.
-(' which punishes reckless imprudence.
@f the +
st
requisite and 1
nd
part

of the )
th
requisite are absent$ it will be an intentional
felony.
-. "ncomplete exempting
circumstance of uncontrollable fear .
B?M2@@T? under par. ( of Art. +1=
a. That the threat which caused the fear
was of an evil greater than$ or at least equal
to$ that which he was required to commitJ
b. That it promised an evil of such
gravity and imminence that an ordinary
person would have succumbed to it.
@f only one of these requisites is
present$ there is only a mitigating
circumstance.
People v+. Aau)!ue
Facts: A girl by the name of Avelina was being
courted and harassed by one Amado. The
young man$ whom the girl flatly refused$
nevertheless persisted in his endeavors by
going to the girlAs house at midnight$
surreptitiously entering her room$ putting his
hand on her forehead *evidently with the
intention of abusing her. and thereby causing
the girl to scream for help. "er parents arrived
but the father of the girl allowed Amado to go
home. Avelina is purported to have received
news of Amado falsely boasting of having taken
liberties with her person. @n church one day$
brightly-lit and filled with other people$ Amado
went to sit with Avelina and without saying a
word$ placed his hand on the upper right thigh
of the girl. Avelina then pulled out her fan knife
with the intention of punishing the offenderAs
hand. Amado sei%ed the girlAs right-hand which
held the weapon$ however$ Avelina was able to
quickly grab the knife with her left-hand and at
once stabbed Amado once at the base of the
left side of the neck$ inflicting a mortal wound.
When asked by those around her why she did
it$ she replied by saying that she couldnAt take
it anymore and that she hoped that she would
be taken care of.
Issues: W0N Avelina can invoke self-defense.
Held/Ratio: No. The attempt to rape a woman
constitutes an unlawful aggression sufficient to
put her in a state of legitimate defense which
will thus exempt her from criminal liability if$ as
the only means to protect her honor$ she
wounds or kills the offender. "owever$ in the
present case$ there could be no possibility of
her being raped. And the means employed by
her in defense of her honor$ resulting in the
death of Amado$ was clearly excessive. he
cannot be legally declared completely exempt
from criminal liability. "owever three mitigating
circumstances such as= provocation producing
passion3obfuscation$ inflicting only one wound
intended to punish the offenderAs hand$ and the
fact that she immediately surrendered herself
to the authorities$ will work in her favor to
lessen the degree of punishment.
People v. Na)vaeB
Facts: Famerto Narvae% has been convicted of
murder *qualified by treachery. of 6avid
:leischer and :laviano Bubia. 0n August 11$
+,(C$ Narvae% shot :leischer and Bubia during
the time the two were constructing a fence that
would prevent Narvae% from getting into his
house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a
nap when he heard sounds of construction and
found fence being made. "e addressed the
group and asked them to stop destroying his
house and asking if they could talk things over.
:leischer responded with NNo$ gadamit$
proceed$ go ahead.N 6efendant lost his
Nequilibrium$N and shot :leisher with his
shotgun. "e also shot Bubia who was running
towards the 9eep where the deceasedKs gun was
placed. #rior to the shooting$ :leischer and !o.
*the company of :leischerKs family. was
involved in a legal battle with the defendant
and other land settlers of !otabato over certain
pieces of property. At the time of the shooting$
the civil case was still pending for annulment
*settlers wanted granting of property to :leisher
and !o. to be annulled.. At time of the
shooting$ defendant had leased his property
from :leisher *though case pending and
ownership uncertain. to avoid trouble. 0n ;une
1'$ defendant received letter terminating
contract because he allegedly didnKt pay rent.
"e was given ( months to remove his house
from the land. hooting was barely 1 months
after letter. 6efendant claims he killed in
defense of his person and property. !:@ ruled
that Narvae% was guilty. Aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation offset
by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. :or both murders$ !:@ sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua$ to indemnify the heirs$
and to pay for moral damages.
Issues:
*+. W0N the aggression on the property of
Narvae% was lawful or unlawful.
*1. W0N self-defense can be claimed by
Narvae% in shooting those who would
Held/Ratio:
*+. Oes. The assault on the property constituted
unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased who had no right to destroy or cause
damage to Narvae%As house$ nor to close his
accessibility to the highway while he was
pleading with them to stop and talk things over
with him.
*1. No. Although aggression is established as
the first element in self-defense and there was
no provocation on the part of Narvae% *thereby
meeting the third element.$ the second
element$ being reasonableness of resistance$
was not met when$ in killing the two victims$
such resistance was disproportionate to the
attack. "ence$ the act of killing the deceased
was not 9ustifiable since not all elements for
9ustification are present.
Hutierre%$ 6issenting= 6efense of property can
only be invoked when coupled with form of
attack on person defending property. @n the
case at bar$ this was not so. Appellant should
then be sentenced to prision mayor. "owever$
since he has served more than that$ he should
be released.
Pa). 2 C THAT THE O--ENDER IS UNDER
#3 YEARS O- AGE OR O=ER 7: YEARS. IN
THE CASE O- THE MINOR1 HE SHALL BE
PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE
>ITH THE PRO=ISIONS O- ART. 3:.
#ar. 1 contemplates the ff=
+. An offender over , but under +' of age
who acted with discernment.
1. An offender fifteen or over but under +C
years of age.
-. An offender over 7> years old.
A).. 3:. 'uspension of sentence of
minor delin(uents. I Whenever a minor of
either sex$ under sixteen years of age at the
date of the commission of a grave or less
grave felony$ is accused thereof$ the court$
after hearing the evidence in the proper
proceedings$ instead of pronouncing
9udgment of conviction$ shall suspend all
further proceedings and shall commit such
minor to the custody or care of a public or
private$ benevolent or charitable institution$
established under the law of the care$
correction or education of orphaned$
homeless$ defective$ and delinquent children$
or to the custody or care of any other
responsible person in any other place sub9ect
to visitation and supervision by the 6irector of
#ublic Welfare or any of his agents or
representatives$ if there be any$ or otherwise
by the superintendent of public schools or his
representatives$ sub9ect to such conditions as
are prescribed herein below until such minor
shall have reached his ma9ority age or for
such less period as the court may deem
proper.
The court$ in committing said minor as
provided above$ shall take into consideration
the religion of such minor$ his parents or next
of kin$ in order to avoid his commitment to
any private institution not under the control
and supervision of the religious sect or
denomination to which they belong.
The 6irector of #ublic Welfare or his
duly authori%ed representatives or agents$ the
superintendent of public schools or his
representatives$ or the person to whose
custody or care the minor has been
committed$ shall submit to the court every
four months and as often as required in
special cases$ a written report on the good or
bad conduct of said minor and the moral and
intellectual progress made by him.
The suspension of the proceedings
against a minor may be extended or
shortened by the court on the
recommendation of the 6irector of #ublic
Welfare or his authori%ed representative or
agents$ or the superintendent of public
schools or his representatives$ according as to
whether the conduct of such minor has been
good or not and whether he has complied
with the conditions imposed upon him$ or not.
The provisions of the first paragraph of this
article shall not$ however$ be affected by
those contained herein.
@f the minor has been committed to the
custody or care of any of the institutions
mentioned in the first paragraph of this
article$ with the approval of the 6irector of
#ublic Welfare and sub9ect to such conditions
as this official in accordance with law may
deem proper to impose$ such minor may be
allowed to stay elsewhere under the care of a
responsible person.
@f the minor has behaved properly and
has complied with the conditions imposed
upon him during his confinement$ in
accordance with the provisions of this article$
he shall be returned to the court in order that
the same may order his final release.
@n case the minor fails to behave
properly or to comply with the regulations of
the institution to which he has been
committed or with the conditions imposed
upon him when he was committed to the care
of a responsible person$ or in case he should
be found incorrigible or his continued stay in
such institution should be inadvisable$ he
shall be returned to the court in order that the
same may render the 9udgment
corresponding to the crime committed by
him.
The expenses for the maintenance of a
minor delinquent confined in the institution to
which he has been committed$ shall be borne
totally or partially by his parents or relatives
or those persons liable to support him$ if they
are able to do so$ in the discretion of the
courtJ #rovided$ That in case his parents or
relatives or those persons liable to support
him have not been ordered to pay said
expenses or are found indigent and cannot
pay said expenses$ the municipality in which
the offense was committed shall pay one-third
of said expensesJ the province to which the
municipality belongs shall pay one-thirdJ and
the remaining one-third shall be borne by the
National Hovernment= #rovided$ however$
That whenever the ecretary of :inance
certifies that a municipality is not able to pay
its share in the expenses above mentioned$
such share which is not paid by said
municipality shall be borne by the National
Hovernment. !hartered cities shall pay two-
thirds of said expensesJ and in case a
chartered city cannot pay said expenses$ the
internal revenue allotments which may be
due to said city shall be withheld and applied
in settlement of said indebtedness in
accordance with section five hundred and
eighty-eight of the Administrative !ode.
LEGAL E--ECTS O- =ARIOUS AGES O-
O--ENDER,
+. 2nder , years of age$ an exempting
circumstance. *Art. +1$ par. 1.
1. 0ver , and under +' years of age$ also an
exempting circumstance$ unless he acted
with discernment *Art. +1$ par. -.
-. Finor delinquent under +C years of age$ the
sentence may be suspended. *Art. +,1$ #6
No. (>- as amended by #6 ++7,.
). 2nder +C years of age$ privileged
mitigating circumstance *Art. (C.
'. +C years or over$ full criminal responsibility.
Pa). % C THAT THE O--ENDER HAD NO
INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GR A >RONG
AS THAT COMMITTED.
This circumstance can be taken into
account only when the facts proven show that
there is a notable and evident disproportion
between the means employed to execute the
criminal act and its consequences.
The intention$ as an internal act$ is
9udged not only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil produced by his
act$ but also by the fact that the blow was or
was not aimed at a vital part of the body.
@ntention must be 9udged by
considering the weapon used$ the in9ury
inflicted and his attitude of the mind when the
accused attacked the deceased.
This mitigating circumstance is not
applicable when the offender employed brute
force.
<ack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong is not appreciated where the offense
committed is characteri%ed by treachery.
@n crimes against persons who do not
die as a result of the assault$ the absence of
the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere
physical in9uries$ but it does not constitute a
mitigating circumstance under Art. +- par -.
@t is not applicable to felonies by
negligence because in these kinds of felonies$
there is no intent on the part of the offender
which may be considered diminished.
#ar. - is only applicable to offense
resulting in physical in9uries or material harm.
@t is not applicable to defamation or slander.
PEOPLE v. URAL &'( !BA +-C *+,7)./
-a'.+, 2ral was convicted of murder by the
Pamboanga !:@ sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua$ and orderinh im to indemnify the
heirs of :elix Napola$ in the sum of #+15 and to
pay the costs. The 9udgment of conviction was
based on the testimony of 8rigido Alberto$
former detention prisoner who witnessed what
happened. 2ral$ a policeman$ boxed the
deceased$ :elix Napola$ a detention prisoner$
inside the 9ail. As a consequence of the fistic
blows$ the deceased collapsed on the floor. The
accused stepped on the prostate body and left.
After a while he returned with a bottle poured
its contents on the recumbent body of the
deceased$ ignited it with a match and left the
cell again. As a consequence$ the victim later
on died of the burns. The crime committed by
appellant 2ral was murder by means of fire
*incendio. *Art 1)C*-.$ B#!.
Held, The trial court correctly held that the
accused took advantage of his public position
*Art +)*+.$ B#!. but it failed to appreciated the
mitigating circumstance of Nno intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.N
*Art.+-*-.$ B#!.. The intention$ as an internal
act$ is 9udged not only by the proportion of the
means employed by him to the evil produced
by his act$ but also by the fact that the blow
was or was not aimed at a vital part of the
body. Thus$ it may be deduced from the proven
facts that the accused had no intent to kill the
victim$ his design being only to maltreat him$
such that when he reali%ed the fearful
consequences of his felonious act$ he allowed
the victim to secure medical treatment at the
municipal dispensary.
<ack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
offsets the generic aggravating$ circumstance
of abuse of his official position. The trial court
properly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua which is the medium period of the
penalty for murder *Arts ()*). and 1)C$ B#!.
PEOPLE =. GONDALED "2::#&
Facts: 8oth of the families of Andres and
that of Hon%ale% were on their way to the exit
of the <oyola Femorial #ark. Hon%ales was with
his grandson and - housemaids$ while Andres
was driving with his pregnant wife$ :eliber$ his
1yr old son$ 5enneth$ his nephew 5evin and his
sister-in-law. At an intersection$ their two
vehicles almost collided. Hon%ales continued
driving while Andres tailed Hon%alesA vehicle
and cut him off when he found the opportunity
to do so$ then got out of his vehicle and
knocked on the appellantKs car window. "eated
exchange of remarks followed. 0n his way back
to his vehicle$ he met Hon%ales son$ 6ino.
Andres had a shouting match this time with
6ino. Hon%ales then alighted from his car and
fired a single shot at the last window on the left
side of AndresK vehicle at an angle away from
Andres. The single bullet fired hit 5enneth$
5evin and :eliber which caused the latters
death.
Held: The mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation is not obtaining.
AndresK act of shouting at Hon%alesA son$ who
was then a nurse and of legal age$ is not
sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation.
6ino was shouting back at Andres. @t was not a
case wherein Hon%ales son appeared helpless
and oppressed that Hon%ales lost his reason
and shot at the vehicle of Andres. The same
holds true for Hon%alesA claim of provocation on
the part of Andres. #rovocation must be
sufficient to excite a person to commit the
wrong committed and that the provocation
must be commensurate to the crime
committed. The sufficiency of provocation
varies according to the circumstances of the
case. The aggressive behavior of Andres
towards Hon%ales and his son may be
demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient
provocation to shoot at Hon%alesA vehicle.
Pa). <. C THAT SU--ICIENT
PRO=OCATION OR THREAT ON THE PART
O- THE O--ENDED PARTY IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDED THE ACT
PRO=OCATION
- Any un9ust or improper conduct or act
of the offended party$ capable of exciting$
inciting$ or irritating anyone.
RE@UISITES,
a. That the provocation must be
sufficient
b. That it must originate from the
offended party
c. That the provocation must be
immediate to the act$ i.e.$ to the
commission of the crime by the person
who is provoked.
People v. Pa!al "#$77&
-a'.+, #agal and Torcelino$ employees of Hau
Huan$ conspired together to take away from
their employer #+$1C+. When Hau Huan
refused to open the kaha de yero$ they
stabbed him with an icepick and clubbed him
with an iron pipe which resulted to his death.
The two accused were charged with the crime
of robbery with homicide. 0n appeal$ they
claimed that they are entitled to 1 mitigating
circumstances= sufficient provocation or threat
on the part of the offended party and having
acted upon an impulse so powerful as to
produce passion and obfuscation.
Held, :irst$ the provocation and obfuscation
arising from one and the same cause should be
treated as only one mitigating circumstance.
ince the alleged provocation which caused the
obfuscation of the appellants arose from the
same incident$ that is$ the alleged
maltreatment and3or ill-treatment of the
appellants by the deceased$ those two
mitigating circumstances cannot be considered
as two distinct and separate circumstances but
should be treated as one.
econdly$ the circumstance of passion and
obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime
which is planned and calmly meditated before
its execution$ as in the case at bar.
Third$ the maltreatment that appellants claim
the victim to have committed against them
occurred much earlier than the date of the
commission of the crime. #rovocation in order
to be mitigating must be sufficient and
immediately preceding the act.
Thus$ where the accused killed his wife during
a quarrel$ because he$ who had no work$
resented her suggestion to 9oin her brother in
the business of cutting logs$ the 1 mitigating
circumstances of provocation 4 obfuscation
cannot be considering in favor of the accused.
Pa). 4. C THAT THE ACT >AS COMMITTED
IN THE IMMEDIATE =INDICATION O- A
GRA=E O--ENSE TO THE ONE
COMMITTING THE -ELONY "DELITO&1 HIS
SPOUSE1 ASCENDANTS1 DESCENDANTS1
LEGITIMATE1 NATURAL OR ADOPTED
BROTHERS OR SISTERS1 OR RELATI=ES
BY A--INITY >ITHIN THE SAME DEGREE.
RE@UISITES,
a. That there be a grave offense done to
the one committing the felony$ his spouse$
ascendants$ descendants$ legitimate$
natural or adopted brothers or sisters$ or
relatives by affinity within the same
degree.
b. That the felony is committed in
vindication of such grave offense. A lapse
of time is allowed between the vindication
and the doing of the grave offense.
PRO=OCATION =INDICATION
@t is made directly
only to the person
committing the
offense
The grave offense may
be committed also
against the offenderAs
relatives mentioned in
the law.
The cause that
brought about the
provocation need not
be a grave offense.
The offended party
must have done a
grave offense to the
offender or his relatives
mentioned in the law.
@t is necessary that
the provocation or
threat immediately
preceded the act.
The vindication of the
grave offense may be
proximate$ which
admits of an interval of
time between the
grace offense done by
the offended party and
the commission of the
crime.
)asis to determine the graity of offense
in indication
The question whether or not a certain
personal offense is grave must be decided by
the court$ having in mind the social standing of
the person$ the place and the time when the
insult was made.
Gindication of a grave offense and passion or
obfuscation cannot be counted separately and
independently.
PEOPLE v. BENITO
-ACTS,
Alberto 8enito was a former clerk of the
!ivil ervice !ommission but was suspended
for 6ishonesty and was later charged with
Mualified Theft$ Falversation of #ublic :unds$
?stafa and :alsification of 6ocuments and
administratively charged for 6ishonesty leading
to his dismissal in +,((. @n +,(, he went to the
!! to seek help from #edro Foncayo ;r.$ the
victim who was a !#A and Asst. !hief of the
#ersonnel Transactions 6iv. and Acting !hief$
Admin. 6iv. of the !omm. Foncayo was the one
who reported to the !! !ommissioner about
8enitoAs malversation which he confessed to
him. 8enito alleged that after asking for help$
he was insulted by Foncayo twice$ on 6ec. ++
and 6ec. +1$ the latter in front of a lot of
people. At '=1' on 6ec. +1 armed with an
unlicensed !al. 11 revolver 8enito waited
outside the !! for Foncayo and shot him C
times in the head and other body parts when
the victim was inside his car which was stopped
due to heavy traffic. After ' hours the incident
his sworn statement was taken wherein he
admitted to shooting Foncayo. 8enito was
sentenced to death by the !ircuit !rim. !ourt of
Fanila and it was affirmed by the !.
@n his F:B 8enito contends that 8enitoAs
remark that a thief was loitering in the
premises of the !! was Dtantamount to
kicking a man already down or rubbing salt into
a raw woundE and that it was made in a loud
voice$ exposing him to ridicule in the presence
of his officemates. The olHen argues that the
defamatory remark cannot give rise to a
mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication since it was not specifically directed
to 8enito and that this was uttered at ++ am
while Foncayo was killed at ' pm$ and 8enito
still saw Foncayo at 1 pm.
ISSUE, W0N 8enito is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of immediate vindication of a
grave offenseQ NO.
HELD,
?ven if FocayoAs remark was directed at
8enito this mitigating circumstance would still
not be appreciated. The ( hrs interval between
the alleged grave offense committed by
Foncayo and the assassination was more than
sufficient to enable 8enito to recover his
serenity. @nstead of using the time to recover
his composure he used it to plan FoncayoAs
death. 8enito ambushed Foncayo 9ust a few
minutes after the victim left the office. "e acted
with treachery and evident premeditation in
perpetrating the coldblooded murder.
8enito assassinated Foncayo not for the
defamatory remark but for his refusal to change
his report as to favor 8enito. "e did not act to
vindicate an alleged grave offense but mainly
to chastise Foncayo for having exposed the
alleged anomalies or defraudation committed
by 8enito and for obstinately refusing to
change his report.
BACABAC v. PEOPLE
-ACTS,
6ec. 1-$ +,,> R "ernani Muidato$ the
victim was at a dance hall with ?duardo
and Felchor elibio. And so were
;onathan 8acabac and ?d%el Talnquines
;onathan and ?d%el left for home and
encountered MuidatoAs group and had a
misunderstanding.
;esus Bosadio witnessed the commotion
and saw Felchor assault ?d%el. "e
warned them that ?d%el was a
councilorAs son but was threatened in
return. "e left and reported the incident
to the councilor while both ?d%el and
;onathan managed to flee.
Muidato and his companion went home
but encountered Bicardo
8acabac *petitioner. together with ?d%el
and ;onathan$ and ?d%elAs father ;ose
and other relatives carrying armed
weapons.
;esus pointed out to them as the people
who manhandled ;onathan and ?d%el.
"ernani apologi%ed$ saying it was 9ust a
case of mistaken identity. 8ut after ;esus
berated them for being bullies$ 8acabac
fired into the air while ;ose fired at
"ernani and ?duard even hitting
;onathan. ?duard fell while "ernani in a
kneeling position raising his hand in
surrender was again shot by ;ose.
Felchor escaped. "ernani$ ?duardo and
;onathan were brought to the hospital$
"ernani was 60A while ?duardo died 1
hours later.
1 informations for murder where filed at
the BT! @loilo against ;ose$ ?d%el$
;onathan and 8acabac which were tried
9ointly. The BT! found the presence of
conspiracy among petitioner and his co-
accused$ convicting them of murder
qualified by treachery.!A affirmed this
decision.
#etitioner assails !AAs decision.
ISSUE, W0N the petitioner can invoke the
mitigating circumstance of Dimmediate
vindication of a grave offenseQ NO.
HELD,
:or such mitigating circumstance to be
credited$ the act should be$ following Article +-$
paragraph ' of the Bevised #enal !ode$
Dcommitted in the immediate vindication of a
!)ave o**en+e .o .he one 'o00..n! .he
*elony "del.o&1 h+ +pou+e1 a+'endan.+1
de+'endan.+1 le!.0a.e1 na.u)al o)
adop.ed 9)o.he)+ o) ++.e)+1 o) )ela.ve+
9y a**n.y 6.hn .he +a0e de!)ee.E The
offense committed on ?d%el was DhittingE his
ear with a stick *according to ;esus.$ a bamboo
pole *according to ?d%el.. 8y ?d%elAs own
clarification$ D&he/ was hit at &his/ ear$ not on
&his/ head.E That act would certainly not be
classified as Dgrave offense.E And ?d%el is
petitionerAs nephew$ hence$ not a relative by
affinity Dwithin the same degreeE contemplated
in Article +-$ paragraph ' of the Bevised #enal
!ode.
Pa). 8. C THAT O- HA=ING ACTED UPON
AN IMPULSE SO PO>ER-UL AS
NATURALLY TO HA=E PRODUCED
PASSION OR OB-USCATION.
RE@UISITES,
a. The accused acted upon an impulse.
b. The impulse must be so powerful that
it naturally produce passion or
obfuscation in him.
#assion or obfuscation may constitute as a
mitigating circumstance only when the same
arose from <AW:2< ?NT@F?NT. @t is not
applicable when=
a. The act committed in a spirit of
<AW<?N?.
b. the act is committed in a spirit of B?G?NH?.
The crime committed must be the result of a
sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable
fury.
The accused who raped a woman is not
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
Dhaving acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passionE 9ust
because he finds himself in a secluded place
with that young ravishing woman$ almost naked
and therefore$ Dliable to succumb to the
uncontrollable passion of his bestial instinct.E
The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation
arising from 9ealousy cannot be invoked in favor
of the accused whose relationship with the
woman was illegitimate.
#assion and obfuscation may lawfully arise
from causes existing only in the honest belief of
the offender.
PASSION OR
OB-USCATION
IRRESISTIBLE
-ORCE
Fitigating
circumstance
?xempting
circumstance
!annot give rise to an
irresistible force
because the latter
requires physical force
#assion or obfuscation
is in the offender
himself
@rresistible force
must come from a
third person
Fust arise from lawful
sentiments
The irresistible force
is unlawful
PASSION PRO=OCATION
#roduced by an
impulse which may
be caused by
provocation
!omes form the
in9ured party
Need not be
immediate. @t is only
required that the
influence thereof lasts
until the moment the
crime is committed
Fust immediately
precede the
commission of the
crime
The effect is the loss of reason and self-control
on the part of the offender.
US v. HICES "#$:$&
Facts: :or about ' years$ "icks and ola
lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife
but they separated. A few days later$ ola
contracted new relations with another negro
named Wallace. "icks went to WallaceAs house
and asked the latter to go out. They talked for
awhile and then "icks shot Wallace
Held: ?ven if it is true that the accused
acted with obfuscation because of 9ealousy$ the
mitigating circumstance cannot be considered
in his favor because the causes which mitigate
criminal responsibility for the loss of self-
control are such which originate from
legitimate feelings and not those which arise
from vicious, unwort! and immoral passions.
The cause of the passion of the accused was
his vexation engendered by the refusal of the
woman to continue to live in illicit relations
with him$ which she had a perfect right to do.
U.S. v. DELA CRUD &11 #hil. )1, *+,+1./
-a'.+, The accused$ in the heat of passion$
killed his common-law wife upon discovering
her in flagrante in carnal communication with a
common acquaintance.
Held, @n this a case$ the accused was entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation. The facts in this case must be
distinguished from the case of 2.. vs. "icks
where it was found that the accused$
deliberately and after due reflection resolved to
kill the woman who had left him for another
man. With a clean and well-prepared weapon$
he enetered the house$ disguising his intention
and calming her by his apparent repose and
tranquility$ doubtless in order to successfully
accomplish his criminal design. @n this case$ the
cause of the alleged passion and obfuscation of
the accused was his vexation$ disappointment
and anger engendered by the refusal of the
woman to continue to live in illicit relations with
him$ which she had a perfect right to do. @n the
present case$ however$ the impulse was caused
by the sudden revelation that she was untrue to
him$ and his discovery of her in flagrante in the
arms of another.
Aud!0en., Fodified by a finding that the
commission of the crime was marked with the
extenuating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation$ penalty is reduced from +) yrs C
mos and + day of reclusion temporal to +1 yrs
and + day of reclusion temporal.
PEOPLE v. GELA=ER
-ACTS,
?duardo Helaver was married to Gictoria
#acinabao$ with whom he begot four children.
They lived together at their con9ugal home until
;uly -$ +,C7 when she abandoned her family to
live with her paramour.
Helaver testified that on Farch 1)$ +,CC$
after he was informed by his daughter where
his wife and paramour were living and
immediately repaired to that place. 2pon
entering the house$ he saw his wife lying on her
back and her paramour on top of her$ having
sexual intercourse.
AppellantKs version of the killing was that
when his wife saw him$ she pushed her
paramour aside. "er paramour immediately
stood up$ took a knife placed on top of the
bedside table and attacked appellant. The latter
was able to wrest possession of the knife and
then used it against the paramour$ who evaded
the thrusts of the appellant by hiding behind
the victim. Thus$ it was the victim who received
the stab intended for the paramour.
As to why he continued to stab his wife$
appellant said that his mind had been
NdimmedN or overpowered by passion and
obfuscation by the sight of his wife having
carnal act with her paramour.
Bandy Famon$ testified that at 7=>> a.m.
of Farch 1)$ +,CC$ he heard shouts coming
from the house of Tessie <ampedario. "e saw
the Helaver and a woman having a heated
argument$ thereafter$ appellant held the neck
of the victim$ dragged her and with a knife on
his right hand$ stabbed the latter three times
on the breast and then fled.
Helaver was found guilty of #arricide by
the BT! and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE, W0N the BT! was correct in finding the
presence of the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscationQ
HELD,
The trial court erred in finding the
presence of the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation Nas a result of his
*appellantKs. wife leaving their home and their
children.N 8efore this circumstance may be
taken into consideration$ it is necessary to
establish the existence of an unlawful act
sufficient to produce such a condition of mind.
The act producing the obfuscation must not be
far removed from the commission of the crime
by a considerable length of time$ during which
the accused might have recovered his
equanimity. The crime was committed almost a
year after the victim had abandoned the
con9ugal dwelling.
Pa). 7. C THAT THE O--ENDER HAD
=OLUNTARILY SURRENDERED HIMSEL-
TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR HIS
AGENTS1 OR THAT HE HAD =OLUNTARILY
CON-ESSED HIS GUILT BE-ORE THE
COURT PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION O-
THE E=IDENCE -OR THE PROSECUTION.
2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
THIS PARAGRAPH,
+. Goluntary surrender to a person in
authority or his agentsJ
1. Goluntary confession of guilt before the
court prior to the presentation of evidence for
the prosecution.
*EQ+"'",E' -. /-0+1,A*2 '+**E1DE*,
a. That the offender had not been
actually arrested.
b. That the offender surrendered himself
to a person in authority or to the latterAs
agent.
c. That the surrender was voluntary.
Ferely requesting a policeman to accompany
the accused to the police "M is not equivalent
to voluntary surrender.
0ther examples=
a. The warrant of arrest showed that the
accused was in fact arrested.
b. The accused surrendered only after
the warrant of arrest was served.
c. The accused went into hiding and
surrendered only when they reali%ed that the
forces of the law were closing in on them.
urrender must be #0NTAN?02. "e
surrendered +. because he acknowledges his
guilty or 1. because he wishes to save them the
trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
his search and capture.
The surrender must be by reason of the
commission of the crime for which he is
prosecuted.
PEOPLE v. AMAGUIN &11, !BA +(( *+,,)./
-a'.+, !elso and Hildo Amaguin$ together with
others$ attacked #acifico and 6iosdado 0ros.
6uring the fray$ Hildo was armed with a knife
and an D@ndian target.E And 9ust as they were
about to finish off the 0ro brothers$ Willie$ the
eldest of the AmaguinAs$ appeared with a
revolver and delivered the coup de grace. They
invoke the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
Held, ! agrees with the accused-appellantsA
view that voluntary surrender should be
appreciated in their favor. While it may have
taken both Willie and Hildo a week before
turning themselves in$ the fact it$ they
voluntarily surrendered to the police before
arrest could be effected. :or voluntary
surrender to be appreciated$ the following must
be present= *a. offender has not been actually
arrestedJ *b. offender surrendered himself to a
person in authorityJ and *c. the surrender must
be voluntary. All these requisites appear to
have attended their surrender.
PEOPLE v. DELA CRUD
-ACTS,
0n Fay ->$ +,-( :rancisco 6ela !ru%$
:ernando <egaspi and - other persons
confederated and helped one another to attack
and assault Ou Wan inflicting upon him physical
in9uries requiring medical attendance
preventing him from working for some days and
stealing his personal property of #1(. 6ela !ru%
was alleged to be a habitual delinquent under
the B#!$ since he was previously convicted
once for theft and twice for estafa with final
9udgment. The accused pleaded not guilty.
6uring the trial$ after 1 witnesses for the
prosecution had testified$ 6ela !ru% withdrew
their plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty
instead. 6ela !ru% was sentenced for ( mos. +
day prision correctional but as a habitual
delinquent there was addAl penalty of ( yrs +
day prision mayor. <egaspi was sentenced to
+> mos. 6ela !ru% is appealing the sentence.
ISSUE, W0N there was the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary plea of guiltQ N0
HELD,
The appellantAs plea of guilty does not
constitute a mitigating circumstance under
Article +- *7. of the B#! which requires that
this plea be spontaneous and that it be made
prior to the presentation of evidence by the
prosecution. The confession of guilt constitutes
a cause for the mitigating of the penalty
because as an act of repentance and respect
for the law$ it indicates a moral disposition of in
the accused favorable to his reform. At the case
at bar$ the accused does not deserve this
benefit for the reason that his plea of guilt was
given only after the prosecution has started its
presentation of evidence. @t was not
spontaneous or made with a sincere desire to
repent but merely speculative and is most likely
made on the belief that the trial will result in his
conviction.
Pa). 3. C THAT THE O--ENDER IS DEA-
AND DUMB1 BLIND OR OTHER>ISE
SU--ERING -ROM SOME PHYSICAL
DE-ECT >HICH THUS RESTRICTS HIS
MEANS O- ACTION1 DE-ENSE1 OR
COMMUNICATION >ITH HIS -ELLO>
BEINGS.
This paragraph does not distinguish between
educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind
persons.
#hysical defect referred to in this paragraph
is such as being armless$ cripple$ or a stutterer$
whereby his means to act$ defend himself or
communicate with his fellow beings are limited.
Pa). $. C SUCH ILLNESS O- THE
O--ENDER AS >OULD DIMINISH THE
E?ERCISE O- THE >ILL5PO>ER O- THE
O--ENDER >ITHOUT HO>E=ER
DEPRI=ING HIM O- CONSCIOUSNESS O-
HIS ACTS.
RE@UISITES,
a. That the illness of the offender must
diminish the exercise of his will-
power.
b. That such illness should not deprive
the offender of consciousness of his
acts.
When the offender completely lost the
exercise of will-power$ it may be an exempting
circumstance.
@t is said that this paragraph refers only to
diseases of patological state that trouble the
conscience or will.
?x. A mother who$ under the influence of a
puerperal fever$ killed her child the day
following her delivery.
PEOPLE v. -ORMIGONES &C7 #hil. ('C
*+,'>./
Na.u)e, Appeal from the decision of the !:@ of
!amarines ur finding Abelardo :ormigones
guilty of parricide 4 sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua$ to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the amount of #15$ and to pay
costs.
-a'.+, @n the month of Nov. +,)($ Abelardo was
living on his farm in !amarines ur w3 his wife$
;ulia Agricola 4 their ' children. :rom there they
transferred in the house of his half-brother$
Pacarias :ormigones in the same municipality to
find employment as harvesters of palay. After a
month$ ;ulia was sitting at the head of the stairs
of the house when Abelardo$ w3o previous
quarrel or provocation whatsoever$ took his bolo
from the wall of the house 4 stabbed his wife
;ulia$ in the back$ the blade penetrating the right
lung 4 causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in
her death. Abelardo then took his dead wife 4
laid her on the floor of the living room 4 then lay
down beside her. @n this position$ he was found
by the people who came in response to the
shouts made by his eldest daughter$ @rene
:ormigones.
The motive was admittedly that of 9ealousy
because according to his statement$ he used to
have quarrels with his wife for reason that he
often saw her in the company of his brother$
PacariasJ that he suspected the 1 were
maintaining illicit relations because he noticed
that his wife had become indifferent to him.
6uring the preliminary investigation$ the
accused pleaded guilty. At the case in the !:@$
he also pleaded guilty but didnAt testify. "is
counsel presented the testimony of 1 guards of
the provincial 9ail where Abelardo was confined
to the effect that his conduct was rather
strange 4 that he behaved like an insane
person$ at times he would remain silent$ walk
around stark naked$ refuse to take a bath 4
wash his clothes etc... The appeal is based
merely on the theory that the appellant is an
@F8?!@<? 4 therefore exempt from criminal
liability under B#! A+1.
I++ue, W0N Abelardo is an imbecile at the time
of the commission of the crime$ thus exempted
from criminal liability
Held, No. "e is not an imbecile. According 6r.
:rancisco Homes$ although he was
feebleminded$ he is not an imbecile as he could
still distinguish between right 4 wrong 4 even
feel remorse. @n order that a person could be
regarded as an imbecile w3in the meaning of
B#! A+1 so as to be exempt from criminal
liability$ he must be deprived completely of
reason or discernment 4 freedom of will at the
time of committing the crime. *Note that
definition is same as insanity.
As to the strange behavior of the accused
during his confinement$ assuming it was not
feigned to stimulate insanity$ it may be
attributed either to his being feebleminded or
eccentric$ or to a morbid mental condition
produced by remorse at having killed his wife. A
man who could feel the pangs of 9ealousy 4 take
violent measures to the extent of killing his wife
who he suspected of being unfaithful to him$ in
the belief that in doing so$ he was vindicating his
honor$ could hardly be regarded as an imbecile.
W0N the suspicions were 9ustified$ is of little or
no importance. The fact is that he believed her
faithless. :urthermore$ in his written statement$
he readily admitted that he killed his wife$ 4 at
the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate
said written statements$ thus saving the
government all the trouble 4 expense of
catching him 4 securing his conviction.
8ut 1 mitigating circumstances are present=
passion or obfuscation *having killed his wife in
a 9ealous rage. 4 feeblemindedness.
Aud!0en., @n conclusion$ appellant is found
guilty of parricide 4 the lower courtAs 9udgment
is hereby affirmed w3 the modification that
appellant will be credited with half of any
preventive imprisonment he has undergone
*because of the 1 mitigating circumstances.
Pa). #:. C AND -INALLY1 ANY OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCE O- A SIMILAR NATURE
AND ANALOGOUS O- THOSE
ABO=EMENTIONED.
0ver (> years old with failing sight$ similar to
over 7> years of age mentioned in paragraph 1.
Goluntary restitution of the property stolen by
the accused or immediately reimbursing the
amount malversed is a mitigating circumstance
as analogous to voluntary surrender.
Not resisting arrest is not analogous to
voluntary surrender.
Testifying for the prosecution is analogous to
plea of guilty.
C"*C+!',A1CE' 34"C4 A*E 1E",4E*
E5E!P,"16 1-* !","6A,"16
1. Fistake in the blow or aberratio ictus$ for
under Art. )C$ there is a complex crime
committed. The penalty is even higher.
1. Fistake in the identity of the victim$ for
under Art. )$ par. +$ the accused is
criminally liable even if the wrong done
is different from that which is intended.
-. ?ntrapment of the accused.
). The accused is over +C years of age. @f
the offender is over +C years old$ his age
is neither exempting nor mitigating.
'. #erformance of righteous action.