Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

People v.

Javier  For the mitigating circumstance of illness to be appreciated, the following must
G.R. No. 130654 | July 28, 1999 be present:
Romero, J. o The illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender;
Accused-appellant Eduardo kills his wife Florentina with a bolo. He admits to the o Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his
crime but claims he had been suffering from insomnia for a month when he killed acts.
his wife, claiming the mitigating circumstance of illness. The SC denied his appeal  However, aside from Eduardo’s own testimony that his mind went blank due to
for lack of evidence showing that his insomnia caused the diminution of the insomnia, no medical finding was presented regarding his mental condition at
exercise of his willpower. the time of the killing.
o No clear and convincing evidence was shown that he was suffering an
FACTS: illness which diminished the exercise of his willpower at the time.
1. Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier and the deceased Florentina Lacaste Javier  On the other hand, it is apparent that Eduardo was aware of the acts he
had been married for 41 years at the time of her death. They had 3 children: committed. He remembered that he killed Florentina using a bolo, that he tried
Alma, who lived with them; Consolacion, who lived 15 meters away; and to kill himself thereafter, and that he was brought to the hospital by his
Manuel, who lived about 70-80 meters away. children.
2. Jun. 15, 1996, 2-3am: While at home, Consolacion heard Florentina o This shows he was in full control of his mental faculties, negating his
screaming, “Arayaten dac ta papatayen nac ni Tatangyo” (Your father is going claim that his insomnia diminished the exercise if his willpower.
to kill me). Consolacion rushed out of her house and saw Alma in front of their
parents’ house, who told her that their parents were fighting. The two sisters ISSUE: W/N accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
rushed to Manuel’s house to fetch him. passion and obfuscation – No.
 The siblings then went back to their parents’ house. Manuel entered  The following elements should concur for this mitigating circumstance to apply:
first and found Florentina’s lifeless body and Eduardo wounded in the o There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such
abdomen. Eduardo had confessed to him that he killed Florentina and condition of mind; and
stabbed himself. o Said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
3. Eduardo raised the defense of insanity. He told the court that he killed his wife commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during
because he had not slept for more than a month, and that at the time the killing which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.
took place, his mind went totally blank and he did not know what he was doing.  These elements were not proven to be present in this case.
 The RTC rejected this contention, because the defense failed to o In fact, during Eduardo’s testimony before the trial court, he admitted
present any medical records nor the testimony of a psychiatrist to he was not jealous of his wife. It seems that he merely alleged his
prove suspicion as an afterthought.
4. RTC Agoo convicted Eduardo of parricide and sentenced him to death, to pay
Florentina’s heirs P50,000 in moral damages and P21,730 as actual expenses, ISSUE: W/N accused-appellant should be sentenced to death – No.
and costs.  The crime of parricide, not being a capital crime per se as it is not punishable
5. Eduardo appeals, averring that the lower court should have considered the by mandatory death penalty but by the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to
mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, and illness (loss of sleep death, two indivisible penalties, the application of the lesser or the greater
for a prolonged period of time). (These circumstances were not alleged by the penalty depends on the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
defense before the lower court).  In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the SC finds that
 He also contends that he suspected that Florentina was having an the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper.
affair, which was aggravated by his illness.
 OSG argues that Eduardo cannot claim the mitigating circumstance of DISPOSITION:
illness absent a medical finding to support such claim, and the Judgment modified. Penalty is lowered to reclusion perpetua.
circumstance of passion and obfuscation absent sufficient evidence.

ISSUE: W/N accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of

illness – No.