Raymundo, Ma. Patricia D.

4LM3

Circumstances which mitigate the criminal liability particularly in Article 13 paragraph 3 of the
Revised Penal Code which states that;
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.1
Mitigating circumstances are this which if present in the commission of a crime, do not entirely
free the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduced the penalty. Mitigating
circumstance serve to reduce the penalty in terms of degree or period.2

Related Jurisprudence

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LADISLAO

BACOLOD, Defendant-Appellee.
Case:
"That on or about the 21st day of February, 1948, in the municipality of Santa Fe, province of
Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with deliberate intent, and on the occasion of a dance held in the municipal tennis court in
connection with the town fiesta, did then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously cause a
serious disturbance in a public place by firing a sub-machine gun which wounded one Consorcia
Pasinio, thereby causing panic among the numerous people present in the said dance who ran and
scampered in all directions."cralaw virtua1aw library
1 Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Article 13, Paragraph 3

2 Estrada, Criminal Law Made Easy for students, bar examinees and practitioners

His counsel de oficio moved to quash this second information, invoking double jeopardy by
reason of the first information which for convenience is quoted
"That on or about the 21st day of February, 1948, in the municipality of Santa Fe, province of
Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, then a
member of the PC patrol, by reckless imprudence and without taking due care and precautions to
avoid damage and injury to the life and property of other persons, did then and there fire a shoot
of a sub-machine gun thereby hitting Consorcia Pasinio at the back of the right side of her body,
which physical injury required or will require medical attendance for more than 30 days but less
than 90, and incapacitated or will incapacitate her from performing her customary labor for the
same period of time.
1. CRIMINAL LAW; SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE, AND
DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER; TWO DISTINCT OFFENSES THOUGH ARISING
FROM A SINGLE ACT. Conviction of the crime of physical injuries thru reckless imprudence
does not bar trial for the offense of causing disturbance in a peaceful gathering, although they
may arise from the same act.
2. ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The protection against double jeopardy is only for the same
offense. A single act may be an offense against two different provisions of law and if one
provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or
conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other.
The motion to quash was granted, and the People appealed in due time.
Did the lower court err?
It will be observed that both informations have one common element: defendants having fired a
sub-machine gun. The first, however, charged him with physical injuries inflicted on Consorcia
Pasinio thru reckless imprudence. On the other hand the second information accuses him of
having deliberately fired the machine gun to cause a disturbance in the festivity or gathering,

thereby producing panic among the people present therein. The two informations do not describe
the same offense. One is a crime against persons; but the other is an offense against public
peace and order. 3
The first is punished under article 263 of the Revised Penal Code and the latter under article
153 referring to individuals disturbing public gatherings or peaceful meetings, The proof
establishing the first would not establish the second, it being necessary to show, besides the
willful discharge of firearm, that there was a dance in the tennis court in connection with the
town fiesta, and that the people in attendance became panicky and terrified. The offenses are not
the same although they arose from the same act of Ladislao Bacolod. Consequently conviction
for the first does not bar trial for the second. 4

In this case there was a protection against double jeopardy which is only for the same
offense, that even though a single act may be an offense against two different provisions of
the law and if not one provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
not have, an acquittal or conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other. It
mitigates the circumstances by that, there is two supposedly case but it will just fall into one
case that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as what was committed
by reckless imprudence and double jeopardy.

3 People V. Cabrera, 43 Phil., 82

4 People V. Cabrera, 43 Phil., 82

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, v. BOTO

BALONTO, ET AL., Defendants. BOTO BALONTO defendant and
Appellant.
Case:
At noon on July 31, 1951, Emilio Suazo, Tony Mondares, Jesus Olarte and one named Sany were
returning to San Jesus Olarte and one named Sany were returning to San Jos, Buayan,
Cotabato, in a jeep driven by Olarte, after spending the morning at Siguil looking for shrimps.
At barrio Lobo, of the same municipality, Olarte stopped the jeep so that Mondares, who was
seated beside him, could get off to remove a log placed across the road. At that juncture, shots
were fired from the left side of the jeep, hitting Olarte on the breast. Suazo and Sany jumped out
of the jeep and together with Mondares started running towards barrio Siguil. Upon reaching
said place they told one Pedro Saudo what had happened, so the latter, together with the three
and other persons, went to Lobo where they found the dead body of Olarte in the jeep.
Soon after the incident, as a result of information furnished by Benito Flansal and Sanaon Onggi
to the effect that Balonto, Lumbos, Montos and Turing Moso were most probably the killers
because they hated the deceased, the Chief of Police of Buayan, D. Torcuator, investigated them.
A few days later Balonto made the sworn statement Exhibit A, taken down in English and
translated to him in Tagalog by the chief of police and sworn to before Justice of the Peace
Yapchiongco. Among other things, he stated therein that his stepson Turing Moso was the one
who shot Olarte; that he had quarreled with Olarte several times because the latter not only had
grabbed his land but also had taken to his house the wife of his (affiants) son; that prior to the
incident he talked with Turing Moso of the plan to kill Olarte, their agreement being that Montos
and Turing Moso would leave that night for Siguil to kill Olarte, affiant having given his carbine
to them; that in the afternoon of July 31, 1951 he was informed by Montos that Olarte had
already been killed.

Turing Moso also made the written statement Exhibit B taken down in English by the chief of
police and translated in Tagalog by Judge Yapchiongco before Turing Moso swore to it and
signed it. In said statement Turing Moso admitted having shot and killed Olarte by order of
Antonio Lumbos and Boto Balonto.
This point is also without merit. While it might have been better if the prosecution had placed
Bagotao, the interpreter, on the witness stand, that was not necessary to make the statement
admissible, the testimony of the chief of police being sufficient to prove the fact that the same
was translated to the affiant before the latter signed it in the presence of Justice of the Peace
Yapchiongco. Moreover, it appears that the contents of the statements already mentioned are
substantially corroborated by other facts established by independent evidence, such as the
existence of the big log across the highway; the finding of two carbines used in the killing
precisely in the place indicated by Montos on a hilltop 200 meters from the house of Balonto;
the fact that the circumstances under which the ambush was committed, as described by the
prosecution witnesses, tally with those described by the affiants in their statements.
Appellant also claims that he should be acquitted on the strength of the testimony of Turing
Moso that he alone was responsible for the crime. The trial court chose not to believe such
testimony because Turing testified for appellant after he had pleaded guilty, so he had nothing to
lose by admitting all the blame, while by doing so he could save appellant, his stepfather, as well
as his brother. His bias, or interest is, therefore obvious. Consequently, we find no reason to
disagree with the lower court in this respect.

In this case the penalty for the offense that he committed was RECLUSION TEMPORAL
which in its maximum period to death, and in this case of no aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances to consider, the MEDIUM PERIOD should be imposed which is also
associated in Art. 13 Paragraph 3 of the RPC of the Philippines, to wit RECLUSION
PERPETUA. The penalty that was imposed by the trial court was modified accordingly.
Similarly, the indemnity of 4,000 pesos to be paid by Boto Balonto should be INCREASED
to 6,000 pesos.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. EDUARDO

BERDIDA Y INGUITO, ET AL., defendants.
EDUARDO BERDIDA Y INGUITO, LORETO SABERON Y CASAS,
VICENTE ABERAS Y CORDERO and JESUS FELICIA Y BALIDBID,
defendants and appellants.
Case:
At about 10 o'clock in the evening of 7 May 1960, Antonio Maravilla, Federico Caalete, Virgilio
Haban and Pedrito Rapadas left the store of one Mang Terio at Mabuhay Street, North Harbor,
Tondo, Manila, and proceeded walking towards their homes. They were met on their way by
Eduardo Berdida, Antonio Louie, one Tiquio and one alias Ifugao, who identified themselves as
detectives, told them not to move, and pointed sharp and long bolos to them. Antonio Maravilla
and Federico Caalete raised their hands, but Pedrito Rapadas and Virgilio Haban were able to
run away. Antonio Louie then dealt a fist blow on Antonio Maravilla. After that, the group took
Antonio Maravilla and Federico Caalete along the rail tracks, telling them that they had done
something wrong.
At the end of the rail tracks, said group tied the hands of Antonio Maravilla and Federico
Caalete. After doing this, they dragged the two and took them to a place in Pier 8 at the North
Harbor near Vicente Aberas' house. In said place, there were others who joined the group,
among them, Jesus Felicia, Loreto Saberon and Vicente Aberas. At this point Eduardo Berdida
told Antonio Maravilla and Federico Caalete to dig their graves, but they refused. Arturo
Macabebe, who also joined the group, took two sticks of cigarettes and told Antonio Maravilla
and Federico Caalete to smoke. Antonio Maravilla again refused. Following said refusal, the
victims were hit with a piece of wood. Eduardo Berdida and Jesus Felicia then held Antonio
Maravilla and Federico Caalete, respectively, by the hands and from behind. As they were thus
held, Vicente Aberas delivered fist blows on them, first on Antonio Maravilla, then on Federico
Caalete. Furthermore, Loreto Saberon also held Federico Caalete while others gave fist blows
to the latter. At about 1 o'clock in the morning of 8 May 1960, Antonio Maravilla lost

consciousness, shortly after hearing Loreto Saberon say that the group would cut off the ears of
Antonio Maravilla and Federico Caalete for appetizer or pulutan".
Antonio Maravilla's sister, Elizabeth, had meanwhile been informed by Virgilio Haban, one of
those who were able to run away, that her brother and Federico Caalete were taken by armed
men. She therefore went out with some companions in search of her brother. She asked the help
of Patrolman Carlos Pili, who was then at the corner of Kaguitingan and Lakandula Streets in
front of Pier 6. Patrolmen Amado Santos and Fabricante also joined them. As the other
policemen took to separate directions, Patrolman Pili and Elizabeth Maravilla went along
Mabuhay Street. They came upon a group of men, between Piers 6 and 8, who were hesitant to
answer their inquiries. So they proceeded further, entering a small alley. As they went on,
Elizabeth found the shoes of her brother. So they continued until they met Vicente Aberas,
stripped to the waist, with bloodstains on his hands. Patrolman Pili detained him. Since
somebody threatened them should they proceed any further, Patrolman Pili and Elizabeth
Maravilla went to Precinct 3, taking along Vicente Aberas. Assistance from the Mobile Patrol
was then requested. Accompanied by her neighbors and more policemen, Elizabeth, together
with Patrolman Pili, returned and went further to the interior of Mabuhay Street. Finally, they
came upon Federico Caalete and Antonio Maravilla, sprawled on the ground, the former face
down, the latter flat on his back. Federico Caalete was found dead. Antonio Maravilla was alive,
though his face was swollen, rendering him barely recognizable. Antonio Maravilla was taken to
the North General Hospital.
Patrolman Pili, meanwhile, went still further to the interior and saw, about 12 meters away from
where they found the victims, a group drinking liquor. At the approach of Patrolman Pili, about
four men ran away, leaving behind four men, namely, Loreto Saberon, Mario Mustrado, Cristoto
Mitilla and Protacio Libres, the last mentioned being then drunk and asleep on a bamboo bed. A
Mobile Patrol car thereafter arrived and apprehended them, except Libres. Patrolman Pili next
went towards a house near Tagumpay Street in which direction the others had fled. In said
house, which was that of Crisanta Melgar, the patrolman found some persons who pretended to
be sleeping, namely, Demetrio Garin, Jesus Felicia and Eduardo Berdida. Patrolman Pili
brought them outside and they were taken by the Mobile Patrol to the Detective

Furthermore, the body of Federico Caalete was examined at the scene where it was found by
officers of the Mobile Patrol. Detective Bureau agents likewise went to said place. Finding
bloodstains near an a alley to Tagumpay Street, they went to a house thereat and found Protacio
Libres sleeping on a bamboo bed. Said detectives took Libres to the headquarters.
At the police station, all the apprehended suspects were made to mingle with other persons.
Antonio Maravilla, who was fetched to point out therefrom the persons who attacked him and
Federico Caalete identified Eduardo Berdida, Vicente Aberas, Loreto Saberon and Jesus Felicia.
In this case the defense has alibi which cannot be sustained. The rule was being settled, to
the point of being trite, that even though the defense has alibis it is still considered
worthless in the face of positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, which were
pointing to the accused as participants of the crime. The Trial court, moreover, found the
above related defenses of alibi were not really credible. According to the court, if
defendants Berida, Felicia, and Saberon really went to help Melgar, their province mate,
fills the drum with water at her house, it is rather unusual that they went to sleep at 9:00 in
the evening. Furthermore, the policeman who inquired about sleeping persons in Melgars
house strangely knew their number, that is, three persons. and finally it is unbelievable that
the policeman did not take them to the HQ for identification by Antonio Maravvilla
himself. Thus the crime committed was still seem to be an intention thus, the defense aren't
really going to get their mitigate their case because the crime committed was so grave.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SOFRONIO AMOTO,

Defendant-Appellant.
Case:
On October 11, 1965, the girl Carmelita Dangculos was in Agusan Pequeno City of Butuan, in
an extension of the house (separated only by a wooden partition) of the accused Sofronio Amoto

where the latter lived with his common-law wife Amalia Florendo, and the latter's two (2)
children, Arsenic Pagalan and Milagros Pagalan (pp. 26-27, 34, t.s.n.).
At about 11:00 o'clock in the morning of October 1, 1965, while Carmelita was listening to the
radio, she felt the house shaking a little; a few moments later she heard someone shouting for
help. The voice was ascertained to that of Milagros Pagalan by Carmelita and her sister
Venturada who was then washing clothes. Upon looking out of the window Carmelita and
Venturada saw Milagros covering her breasts with her left arm and her mouth was oozing with
blood; she was going towards the house of Ildefonso Goldemaro, only about five to six meters
away (pp. 28-31, 35, 38-39, 42-44, t.s.n.). Later they saw Milagros coming down from the house
of Ildefonso Goldemaro with the latter assisting her as she walked toward the street (pp. 30-31,
40, t.s.n., Exhs. D & E, pp. 5, 7, rec.).
Wilfredo Aparre, a member of the City Police Department of Butuan City was then about 25
meters from the scene of the aforementioned incident. When he saw that Milagros was wounded,
he asked her what happened to her and Milagros replied I was raped and stabbed by Daddy'
(pp. 48-50, 53, 62, t.s.n., EXH. F, p. 10, rec.). About 12:00 o'clock noon of that same day the
accused was arrested by Wilfredo Aparre (pp. 57-61, 71-72, t.s.n.).
Milagros Pagalan died as she reached the hospital where she had been taken by Ildefonso
Goldemaro. Dr. Angeluz R. Tupaz of the City Health Office of the City of Butuan made an
autopsy on the cadaver at the Raniel's Funeral Parlor of that city, and set forth his post mortem
findings, in the report Exh.
On October 14, 1965, another statement was signed and subscribed by the accused before
Special Counsel Ricardo S. Castillo, in which he denied the truth of the reasons why he had
killed Milagros Pagalan as given by him in his previous affidavit of October 11, 1965. When
asked what was the truth, he gave the following story: At around 8:00 in the morning of October
11, 1965, his common law wife left their home for the Standard Plywood Factory where she was
working; he had sexual intercourse with Milagros in the house when they were left alone; he
wanted to repeat the act that same day, and Milagros agreed provided there was a chance to do

so; he came downstairs for a drink and when he returned to the house he saw Milagros asleep
on top of a table in the kitchen; he mounted on top of the table and Milagros was awakened, she
yielded to his desire; while in the act of sexual intercourse, Milagros noticed that there was
somebody in the other room and she shouted for help; he told her to keep quite but she shouted
again, whereupon he forgot himself and stabbed her repeatedly with a pair of scissors he found
near the table; because Milagros was held tight in his arms, she was not able to escape, and he
kept on stabbing her until they both fell on the floor where he continued to stab her; afterwards
she managed to escape and run towards the house of Ildefonso Goldemaro, a neighbor.5
In this case, for the other case Art 13. Paragraph 3 was used, however in this case the
supposed decision of the usage of this case was not used. The lower court did not
CONSIDER the mitigating circumstances under the RPC. Because of the findings that
seeking of pair of scissors was also a reason for not mitigating the circumstances, however
being pleaded by the defense team.

RODEL URBANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Case:
On September 28, 1993, at around 8:00 p.m., the victim Brigido Tomelden and petitioner were at
the compound of the Lingayen Water District (LIWAD) in Lingayen, Pangasinan, having just
arrived from a picnic in the nearby town of Bugallon, Pangasinan, where, with some other coworkers, they drunk beer in a restaurant. While inside the compound, the two had a heated
altercation in the course of which Tomelden hurled insulting remarks at petitioner. Reacting,
petitioner asked why Tomelden, when drunk, has the penchant of insulting petitioner.

5 Brief of the Appellee, Pp. 3-6 Rolio, Pp 44-45.

The exchange of words led to an exchange of blows. Cooler heads succeeded in breaking up the
fight, but only for a brief moment as the protagonists refused to be pacified and continued
throwing fist blows at each other. Then petitioner delivered a "lucky punch," as described by
eyewitness Orje Salazar, on Tomelden's face, which made Tomelden topple down. Tomelden was
on the verge of hitting his head on the ground had their companions not caught him and
prevented the fall. The blow, however, caused Tomelden's nose to bleed and rendered him
unconscious.
Petitioner and his other co-workers brought Tomelden to the office of the LIWAD general
manager where he spent the night. He remained in the compound the following day, September
29, 1993. Upon arriving home at around 6:00 p.m. of that day, Tomelden informed his wife,
Rosario, of the fight the previous night and of his having been rendered unconscious. He
complained of pain in his nape, head, and ear which impelled Rosario to immediately bring him
to the Lingayen Community Hospital where Dr. Daisy Arellano examined him and treated his
lacerated left index finger, contusions, and hematoma at the right cerebrum.
On October 2 and 7, 1993, Tomelden went back to the hospital complaining of dizziness,
headache, and other pains. The attending doctors observed the patient to be in a state of
drowsiness and frequent vomiting. On October 8, 1993, Rosario brought Tomelden to the Sison
Memorial Provincial Hospital in Dagupan City, where the attending physician, Dr. Ramon
Ramos, diagnosed Tomelden suffering from "brain injury, secondary to mauling to consider
cerebral hemorrhage."3
Tomelden was confined in the provincial hospital until 3:00 p.m. of October 10, 1993, and, due
to financial constraints, was thereafter discharged despite signs negating physical condition
improvement. Upon reaching their house, however, Tomelden again complained of extreme head
pain, prompting his wife to bring him back to the Lingayen Community Hospital where Dr.
Arellano again attended to him. This time, things turned for the worst, the doctor noting that
Tomelden appeared to be semi-conscious, sleepy, uncooperative, and not responding to any
stimulant. Tomelden died at 9:00 p.m. of that day due, per Dr. Arellano, to "cardio-respiratory
arrest secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling
incident."

The defense presented petitioner who denied having any intention to kill, asserting that
hypertension, for which Tomelden was receiving treatment, was the cause of the latter's death.
It is petitioner's threshold posture that the fistic injury Tomelden sustained was not "the main
underlying cause of his death."9 In this regard, petitioner draws attention to the fact that the fist
fight in question happened on September 28, 1993. Tomelden, however, died only on October 10,
1993 or 12 days thereafter and that, during the intervening days, particularly September 29,
1993, the deceased regularly reported for work. Moreover, petitioner avers that days prior to the
fateful incident of September 28, 1993, Tomelden failed to come to work as he was suffering from
malignant hypertension and that this circumstance greatly engenders doubt as to the proximate
cause of the victim's death. Petitioner, thus, contends that he could only be adjudged guilty of
physical injuries.10
We are not persuaded.
The prosecution witness, Salazar, testified about petitioner's lucky punch hitting Tomelden right
smack on the face. And even if Tomelden's head did not hit the ground as his co-workers averted
that actuality, that punch gave him a bleeding nose and rendered him unconscious right after the
September 28, 1993 fight. From then on, Tomelden was in and out of the hospital complaining of
headache, among other pains, until his demise on October 10, 1993, or 12 days after the blow
that made Tomelden unconscious.
Significantly, Dr. Arellano testified conducting an autopsy on the body of Tomelden and stressed
that the "softened portion of the scalp over (R) occipito-temporal area about 5 inches above and
posterior to the (R) ear" of the victim could have been caused by a fist blow. She also opined that
the fist blow which landed on Tomelden's head could have shaken his brain which caused the
cerebral concussion; and that the cause of the victim's death was "cardio-respiratory arrest
secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident."
The combined effects of the testimonies of Salazar and Dr. Arellano, buttressed by that of
Rosario who related about her husband's post September 28, 1993 severe head pain, clearly
establish beyond cavil the cause of Tomelden's death and who was liable for it.

In this case when the law speaks for its provocation either as mitigating circumstance or
essential element of self defense, the reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the
offended party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritation anyone. it is not however enough
that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying, the provocation must be sufficient to
excite one to commit the wrongful act. Also when there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
impose the penalty with the lower to what is prescribed by law. Within the period that it
may seem to be applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.