PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE The argument of the justifying circumstance of self- defense is applicable only if the 3

requirements are fulfilled, according to Art. 11(1) RPC:

Facts: Defendant Avelina Jarigue(girl) and appellant Amado Capino lived in the same
barrio. Prior to the incident at hand, Capino had been courting Jarigue to no avail. A 1. Unlawful aggression.
month prior to the incident, Capino stole a hanky belonging to Jarigue bearing her
nickname aveling while I was being washed. On another night, Jarigue was feeding a
dog under her house, when Capino approached her and spoke to her of his love, which 2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to
she flatly refused, and he thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and touched her
boobs. She thereafter kept a long fan knife to protect herself. A few days later, Capino prevent or repel attack.
climbed up the house of Jarigue and entered the room where she was sleeping. He felt
her forehead with the intention of raping her. She immediately screamed for help, which
awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Capino then came out from where 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of
he was hiding, under the bed, and kissed the hand of Jarigues father to beg for
forgiveness. Several days later on the fateful night, her family went to the local church person defending himself.
where it was quite bright. When Jarigue was left alone in the bench while her father
tended to some business, Capino sat beside Jarigue and placed his hand on top of her
thigh. On observing this highly improper conduct, Jaurigue stabbed Capino in the neck, Unlawful aggression due to the utterance of
fatally causing a single wound from which he died. Jaurigue surrendered without
question.
Fleischer and the invasion of Narvaezs property was clear. The pending case regarding
ownership was decided only over a year after the incident, and even then, Fleischer had
Issue: WON defendant acted in the legitimate defense of her honor and should be given Narvaez until the end of the year to leave the land. Lack of sufficient provocation
completely absolved from all criminal liability. was clear because Narvaez was asleep in his house, then asked Fleischer to stop so
they could talk. Firing a shotgun from a window, however, was a disproportionate means
of resistance.
Side issue: WON there were mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited w/ the special mitigating
Held: She is not absolved from criminal liability. If the defendant had killed Capino when circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to A13(6) RPC. These mitigating
he climbed up her house to rape her, she could have been perfectly justified in killing
circumstances are: voluntary surrender & passion & obfuscation.
him. However, when the deceased sat beside defendant on the same bench in a well lit
chapel with several people inside, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant
where there is no possibility of being raped. She cannot be legally declared completely DISSENTS:
exempt from criminal liability for fatally wounding the deceased since the means
employer by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive.
Abad Santos: Self-defense in the penal code refers to unlawful aggression on persons
and not property. Gutierrez, Jr.: Appellant defended from an attack on his property that
On the side: The fact that she voluntarily surrendered to the lieutenant in the chapel was not coupled with an attack on his person. There should be no special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense. The sentence should have been modified to prision
and admitted to stabbing the deceased , and the fact that she had acted in the immediate
mayor and the defendant should have been ordered released immediately.
vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few moments before, and upon
such provocation as to produce passion or temporary loss of reason, should be
considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor. People vs. Ernesto UlepG.R. no. 132547September 20, 2000

The aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated to religious Facts:SPO1 Ernest Ulep is convicted for the murder of Buenaventura Wapili. His case
worship cannot be legally sustained as there is no evidence to show that defendant had isautomatically elevated for review to the Supreme Court due to the imposed penalty of
murder in her heart when she entered the chapel. She should therefore be charged with death.On December 22, 1995 at around 2:00am at Mundog Subdivision,
homicide without aggravating circumstances and with mitigating circumstances. Poblacion,Kidapawan, Cotabato, Buenaventura Wapili was having a high fever and was
heard talkinginsensibly to himself in his room. Dario Leydan, his brother-in-law,
convinced him to come outand talk. But Wapili refused. A little later, there was a
PEOPLE VS. NARVAEZ
disturbance inside the room as if Wapiliwas smashing the furniture, until he was already
running without any particular direction as if completely gone crazy. After several
FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of attempts to pacify Wapili, Leydan went to another neighbor to solicit her help. The
David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia when the two neighbor, Norma Plando was a policewoman who radioed SPO1 Ernesto Ulep,
were constructing a fence (that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and SPO1Edilberto Espadera and SPO2 Crispin Pillo.The three responding policemen,
rice mill). Narvaez, who was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction, awoke armed with M-16 rifles, arrived around 4:00am. SPO1Ulep fired a warning shot and told
and asked them to stop destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Wapili to put down his weapon or they would shoot him.However, Wapili refused and
Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead." Narvaez lost his instead advanced towards the police officers. At about two or three meters away, SPO1
"equilibrium," and shot Fleisher first, then Rubia, who was running towards the jeep to Ulep shot various parts of the victims body. As the victim slumped tothe ground, SPO1
get his gun. Both died. Ulep fired another bullet into his head. An Information for murder was filed against SPO1
Ulep through the Office of theOmbudsman for the Military. The accused pleaded not
guilty to the charge and insisted that heacted in self-defense.On October 27, 1997, the
Narvaez voluntarily surrendered and claimed he killed in defense of his person and of his trial court convicted the accused of murder and sentenced himto death.
rights. The CFI convicted him of murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating
circumstance of evident premediation and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. Issue:Whether or not the circumstance of fulfillment of duty should be appreciated in the
case.
Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved
in a legal battle with the Narvaez over certain pieces of property. At the time of the Whether or not the circumstance of self-defense is present.
shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of
property to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). Narvaez had leased his property from
Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated in thecase
Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25,
as to qualify the offense from homicide to murder.
Narvaez received a letter terminating the contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent.
He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months
after letter. Held:In order that the circumstance of fulfillment of duty be appreciated, two requisites
mustconcur. First, that the appellant acted in the performance of a duty or is in the lawful
exercise of a right or an office; and second, that the injury caused or the offense
ISSUE: W/N CFI erred in convicting Narvaez despite the fact that he was acting in
committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful
defense of his person and of his rights.
exercise of such right or office.In the instance case, the second requisite is absent. When
HELD/RATIO: YES (with respect to rights) Narvaez ordered released immediately coz
he fatally shot the victim inthe head even after the latter slumped to the ground cannot
his penalty was reduced and he had already served it as he was imprisoned for 14 years.
be exonerated. Obviously, it wasunnecessary even perhaps in his desire to take no
chances.For the appreciation of self-defense, the elements are: the existence of
Defense of his person - NO unlawfulaggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the accused; reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and the lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself.In the case, the records show
The courts said that although the fencing of Narvaez house was indeed a form of that when the appellant fired while the victim was alreadylying on the ground affirmed the
aggression against him, this aggression was not done against his person but rather on absence of aggression. The first indispensable requisite for self defense being absent is
his rights to property. However, in consideration of the violation of property rights, the fatal to the claim. As to treachery, it is appreciated whenever the offender commits any
courts referred to Art. 30 of the civil code, which recognizes the right of owners to close of the crimesagainst persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
and fence their land. But the Narvaez cant subscribe to the article because his ownership thereof which tenddirectly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
of the land being awarded by the government was still pending, therefore putting arising from the defensewhich the offended party might make.The accused fired a
ownership into question. It is accepted that Narvaez warning shot in the air and specifically ordered the victim to lower his weapon. This shows
that the appellant did not seek the killing of Wapili on purpose. Theappellants decision
Defense of his rights YES (although incomplete) to kill was made in an instant and the victims helpless position was merelyincidental to
his having been previously shot.The presence of the incomplete justifying circumstance
of fulfillment of a duty or lawfulexercise of a right is deemed a special or privileged
mitigating circumstance. Such circumstancecannot be offset by aggravating J. AQUINO
circumstances but also reduces the penalty by one or twodegrees than that prescribed
by law in accordance to Article 69 of the RPC.Furthermore, the court credited in favor of
the appellant the presence of the mitigatingcircumstance of voluntary surrender. The APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE CFI OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR
police blotter shows that appellant immediatelyreported to the police headquarters and
voluntarily surrendered himself after the incident.In appreciation of the incomplete FACTS:
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty or lawfulexercise of a right lowered the
penalty by one degree from reclusion temporal to prision mayor.The existence of the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender imposed the penalty of prision mayor in - Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a policeman inside the
its minimum period.The Supreme Court held SPO1 Ulep guilty of Homicide instead of jail where he was boxing prisoner Napola (who was imprisoned for being drunk). When
Murder. He issentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 4 years, 2 months and 10 day Napola fell to the ground he U kicked him and poured some liquid on N and then ignited
of prisioncorreccional medium as minimum, to 6 years, 4 months and 20 days of prision Ns body.
mayor minimumas maximum. He is further ordered to indemnity the heirs of the victim in
the amount of P50,000and to pay the costs. - Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he sustained 2nd degree
burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face and one half of the body including the back.
PEOPLE VS GUILLERMO BELLO She also testified that without any medical intervention, the burns would have caused
death

KEYWORD: White Slave Trade

- Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated burn as the cause
of death.
FACTS: Bello is a 54 year old widower who was having a common law relationship with
Alicia Cervantes who was then only 24 years old. Because of financial strain, Bello
induced Alicia to work as a public hostess in Marings Bar; to which she agreed. Bello - During the trial, the prosecutors failed to present the detention prisoners who
was very infatuated with Alicia that he watched her dance all the time in the bar. One saw the burning of Napola as witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased
night, Bello saw Alicia enter a movie house with another guy. Bello took her out of the
movie house and reminded her to be discreet about her personal conduct. - Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and was ordered to pay for costs
One night, he approached Alicia while the latter was working in the bar to ask for some
money. He was sent away by Maring, the bar owner, telling him to stop bothering Alicia ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
as he was already an old man. On his way home, Bello encountered Justo and Luis reasonable doubt.
Marasigan who said so this is the man whose wife is being used by Maring for white
slave trade. Infuriated, Bello went to the bar, got hold of Alicia from behind with his left
hand and stabbed her several times with a balisong his right hand. He surrendered Held: TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder.
immediately by going to the municipal building.
- Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he heard a scream
The trial court made a finding of treachery, evident premeditation, and in cold blood and for help from Napola whose shirt was in flames when found by him, he removed the shirt,
without provocation. In the dispositive portion however, the trial court considered the but did not summon the doctor because he thought that the burns were not serious.
aggravating circumstances of (1) nighttime (2) abuse of confidence and obvious
ungratefulness and (3) superior strength offset only by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender. Bello was convicted to die through electrocution. o SC: this statement cannot prevail over the testimony of Alberio

ISSUE: o This statement does not prove that he was not the one who burned Napola,
at most this could only mean that he was alarmed by the consequences of his evil act

Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of

- Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying that he was not
listed as a prosecution witness and that he was convicted of murder in the past
treachery, evident premeditation, superior strength, nighttime and abuse of confidence
and obvious ungratefulness may be appreciated. NO
o Wouldnt preclude him from being a credible witness.

Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation may be

appreciated - YES o Since there was no police investigation (accused a police officer), the
investigation that ensued was done by a special counsel of the fiscals office. A possible
explanation of alberio not being listed at first.
HELD:
o The statements of the witnesses for the defense were not inconsistent with
TREACHERY there was no treachery. True, Alicia may have been stabbed at the back that of Alberios.
yet this is but a continuation of earlier stabbing which Bello inflicted in the breast,
hypogastric region and left wrist. The back stab was inflicted when Alicia was about to
run.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION there was no evident pre- meditation. Bello carried the Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in Alberios testimony.
Balisong not because he planned on killing Alicia but because he always brings it for
protection. The killing was a spur of the moment. - The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater than what was
intended).
SUPERIOR STRENGTH there was no superior strength. Bello was an old man and
invalid [baldado] while Alicia was in the prime of her youth, and not infirm. The facts are o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1).
not sufficient to draw a comparison of their relative strength.

o TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating circumstance that the offender

NIGHTIME although the killing was done at night, it was not purposely sought or taken had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
advantage of by Bello. In fact, Marings bar was well lit.

No intent to kill but only to maltreat the drunk napola who might have been
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS - There is nothing to making a nuisance of himself
show that the assailant and his common-law wife reposed in one another any special
confidence that could be abused, or any gratitude owed by one to the other that ought to
be respected, and which would bear any relation, or connection, with the crime He realized the fearful consequence of his felonious act, he allowed Napola
committed. None is inferable from the fact that the accused was much older than his to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary
victim, or that he was penniless while she was able to earn a living and occasionally gave
him money, since both lived together as husband and wife. Neither is it shown that the
- Since the mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance, TC
accused took advantage of any such special confidence in order to carry out the crime.
correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the
penalty for murder.
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION the remarks of the Marasigan brothers hurt the
feelings of Bello prompting him to indulge in heavy drinking and thereafter, plead to Alicia
DECISION: TC decision AFFIRMED.
to leave her work. This constitutes passion and obfuscation.

People v. Gonzales
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE) VS. DOMINGO URAL
(ACCUSED-APPELLANT)
FACTS: Gonzales-Flores was found guilty of illegal recruitment as seamen three different
people at the same time and collecting money from them without the necessary license.
L-30801 MARCH 27 1974
The complainants filed a complaint after they tried to follow-up their applications and is the son of Councilor Jose Talanquines, Jr. (Jose), whereupon Eduardo told Jesus to
nothing happened for three months and they found out from the POEA that the accused go away for they might shoot him. Jesus left and went to Edzel's house to report to his
wasnt licensed. The evidence consisted of the complainants testimonies and father what he had witnessed. Meanwhile, Edzel and Jonathan escaped.
testimonies of other witnesses. Accused now argues that the Court didnt have enough
evidence to convict her.
The victim and his companions then headed for home. They met Pat. Ricardo Bacabac
(Bacabac), with Edzel and Jonathan who are Bacabacs nephews; Also there were
ISSUE: W/N the Court had enough evidence to convict the accused. Edzel's father, Jose, Edzels mother, and his two sisters. Bacabac and Jose were
carrying M-16 armalites, while Jonathan and Edzel had a piece of wood and a revolver,
respectively.
HELD: The SC upholds the conviction. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale
are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the
accused has no license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or Jesus then pointed to the victim and his companions as the ones who had manhandled
overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, Jonathan and Edzel. The victim apologized, explaining that he and his companions
individually or as a group. All the conditions are present. The evidence shows that she mistook Jonathan and Edzel for other persons. Jesus blurted out, however, "You are just
could do something to get their applications approved. Accused contends that all she did bragging that you are brave. You are only bullying small children. Bacabac, at that
was to refer the complaints but the Labor Code, recruitment includes referral which is instant, fired his armalite into the air, while Jose fired his armalite ("as if spraying his rifle
defined as the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment after initial from right to left") at the victim and Eduardo, even hitting Jonathan in the thigh as he
interview of a selected application for employment or a selected employer, placement (Jonathan) "was on the move to strike Quidato with a piece of wood." Eduardo fell. And
after initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, so did Quidato who was in a kneeling position, and as he was raising his hands in
placement officer, or bureau. Also she did more than just make referrals, she actively surrender, Jose shot him again.
and directly enlisted complainants for employment aboard, when promising jobs as
seamen, and collected money.
Melchor escaped. Quidato, Eduardo, and Jonathan were brought to the hospital. Quidato
was pronounced dead on arrival. Eduardo died two hours later.
People v. Pagal
Two informations were filed. One for the murder of Quidato and the other for Eduardos.
Facts: Accused-appellants Pagal and Torcellino were charged with the crime of robbery
with homicide, with the generic aggravating circumstances of nightime purposely sought
to better accomplish their criminal design; evident premeditation; in disregard of the The RTC found them (Bacabac, Jose, Jesus, Edzel and Jonathan) all guilty. They all
respect due the offended party; and with abuse of confidence, the accused being then appealed but only Bacabac filed a brief and only his was given due course.
employees of the offended party. When the case was called for arraignment, the accused
entered a plea of guilty but they were allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating Issue: Whether or not Bacabac should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of
circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediate vindication of a grave offense. NO.
immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
to produce passion and obfuscation. The RTC, after considering the 4 aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstance of only plea of guilt, found them guilty of the Ratio: Bacabac is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of
crime charged, sentencing them with the penalty of death. The case was elevated to the a grave offense. For such mitigating circumstance to be credited, the act should be,
SC by virtue of the mandatory review on account of the penalty of death imposed on the following Article 13, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, "committed in the immediate
accused. vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives
by affinity within the same degree." The offense committed on Edzel was "hitting" his ear
Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in not appreciating in favor of the accused the with a stick (according to Jesus), a bamboo pole (according to Edzel). By Edzel's own
mitigating circumstances of (1) sufficient provocation and (2) passion or obfuscation. clarification, "[he] was hit at [his] ear, not on [his] head." That act would certainly not be
classified as "grave offense." And Edzel is Bacabacs nephew, hence, not a relative by
Held: NO, the RTC is correct. As a rule, two or more mitigating circumstances arising affinity "within the same degree" contemplated in Article 13, paragraph 5 of the Revised
from the same act cannot be considered as separate and distinct circumstances but Penal Code.
should be treated as one. Thus, in this case, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation cannot be considered because the alleged provocation which caused the Note: There was a long discussion about conspiracy and the SC said there was
obfuscation arose from the same incident, which is the alleged maltreatment and/or ill- conspiracy. There was also treachery. Bacabac is guilty of murder.
treatment caused by the victims towards the accused-appellants.

UNITED STATES VS. HICKS (once you go black...)

As to the circumstance of passion and obfuscation, it cannot be treated as mitigating if
the crime involved was planned and calmly meditated before its execution, such as in
this case of robbery where the appellants are expected to have carefully planned its Facts: Agustina Sola was the mistress of Augustus Hicks, an afro-american. They lived
execution. Thus, in People vs. Daos, a case of robbery with homicide, this Court rejected together for about 5 years
the claim of the appellants therein that passion and obfuscation should have been
estimated in their favor, because the death of the victim therein took place on the until Sola decided to leave Hicks. Sola found another afro- american lover in Wallace
occasion of a robbery, which, before its execution, had been planned and calmly
Current. When Hicks learned about this he went to Currents house to confront the two.
meditated by the appellants. While conversing, Hicks said God damn, Ive made up my mind as he was about to
grab his revolver. Current got hold of Hicks hand but the latter slapped it away. Current
Finally, the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against them ran inside a room just as Hicks drew his revolver and shot Sola, who was close by in the
occurred much earlier than the date of the commission of the crime. Provocation in order sala of the house, on the left side of the breast. Sola died. Hicks was charged and found
to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately proceeding the act. guilty of murder, sentenced to death.
We hold that the trial court did not commit any error in not appreciating the said mitigating
circumstances in favor of the appellants. Issue: W/N there is the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation?

PEOPLE v BENITO (74 SCRA 271) December 17, 1976 G.R. No. L-38091
Held: None!

The accused (who had a pending case with the Civil Service) contended that the victim Generic aggravating circumstance of premeditation
insulted him when he (the victim) remarked that a thief was loitering in the premises of
the Civil Service Commission and further argued that that remark "was tantamount to
kicking a man already down and to rubbing salt into a raw wound" and that, as it was SC held that the crime was attended with the aggravating circumstance of premeditation
made publicly and in a loud voice, he was exposed to ridicule in the presence of his because it found, according to one of the witnesses, that before the crime, the witness
officemates. Assuming that the remark was directed at the accused, the Court did not and Hicks were drinking and the latter, while cleaning a revolver said that Solas time had
apply the mitigating circumstance of vindication for a grave offense for the killing of the come. SC found that Hicks deliberately and after due reflection had resolved to kill the
victim because the accused had more than sufficient time to suppress his emotion over woman who had left him for another man, and in order to accomplish his perverse
said remark if he ever did resent it. intention with safety, notwithstanding the fact that he was already provided with a clean
and well-prepared weapon and carried other loaded cartridges besides those already in
his revolver, he entered the house, greeting everyone courteously and conversed with
BACABAC V. PEOPLE
his victim, in what appeared to be a proper manner, disguising his intention and claiming
her by his apparent repose and tranquility, doubtless in order to successfully accomplish
Facts: Hernani Quidato (the victim) was at a dance with Eduardo Selibio (Eduardo) and his criminal design, behaving himself properly as he had planned to do beforehand.
Melchor Selibio (Melchor). And so were Jonathan Bacabac (Jonathan) and Edzel
Talanquines (Edzel). Absence of mitigating circumstance

Jonathan and Edzel left the dance hall. Quidatos group also left. They encountered As against the two foregoing aggravating circumstances no mitigating circumstances is
Jonathan and Edzel. The two groups had a misunderstanding. present, not even that mentioned in paragraph 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, to wit loss
of reason and self-control produced by jealousy as alleged by the defense, inasmuch as
On his way home, Jesus Delfin Rosadio (Jesus), noticed a commotion. He soon saw that the only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are
Melchor was "hugging" Edzel, and later "tying" Jonathan "with his hands." He then saw such as originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy,
the victim hit Edzel with a "stick." He thus told the victim and his companions that Edzel and immoral passions.
 The common-law wife had a right to leave her common-law husband, as they were not
U.S. V. DELA CRUZ March 29, 1912 G.R. No. L-7094 united in holy matrimony. He had no right to compel her to go with him. Remember that
the first requirement of passion or obfuscation is that there be an unlawful act, sufficient
to produce diminution of self-control or the exercise of will power.
The accused, in the heat of passion, killed his former lover upon discovering her in
flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. The accused was entitled
to the mitigating circumstance because in this case, the impulse upon which defendant Returning now to the case at hand, what Guillermo was asking from Alicia was that she
acted and which naturally "produced passion and obfuscation" was not that the woman (1) quit her job as a hostess; an ill-reputed profession corroborated by her promiscuous
declined to have illicit relations with him but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to relations with other men, and (2) resume her job as a hostess.
him, and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another.
The Supreme Court held that Alicias flat out refusal was an exhibition of immorality itself.
SUMMARY: A monogamous illegitimate relationship is definitely of higher standing than illicit
relationship for the sake of gain or gainful promiscuity as the court put it.
Defendant, in the heat of passion, killed his querida (concubine or lover) upon catching
her red-handed in the arms of another. Trial court convicted defendant of homicide and This, coupled with the cruel words against him were enough to constitute passion and
sentenced him to 14 years 8 months 1 day of reclusion temporal. Supreme Court found obfuscation in the old soul. Thus, he is entitled to a mitigating circumstance.
extenuating/mitigating circumstances in the commission of the act of homicide therefore
reducing defendants sentence to 12 years 1 day of reclusion temporal.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.WILLIE AMAGUIN, GILDO
AMAGUIN AND CELSO AMAGUIN, accused. January 10, 1994
ISSUES: 1 WoN there is an extenuating/mitigating circumstance present - YES FACTS
(Accused) brothers Willie, Gildo and Celso, all surnamed
Defendant (De la Cruz), in the heat of passion, killed his querida when he caught her red-
handed in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance.
Amaguin being charged with the murder of the Oro brothers Pacifico and Diosdado.

2. Trial court found defendant guilty of homicide without any extenuating circumstances
present. Defendant was sentenced to 14 years 8 months 1 day of reculsion temporal Facts: On their way to the plaza, Pacifico (deceased) was called by accused Celso
(medium degree of penalty prescribed by the code). Amaguin. After the refusal of the deceased, the accused, Celso, with a butcher's knife in
hand, rushed towards Pacifico. Gildo, Celso's younger brother, followed with a knife and
slingshot. Celso hacked Pacifico. Gildo then stabbed Diosdado with a knife. Thereafter,
HOLDING: 1. YES. There is an extenuating circumstance present in the case. The Court Willie, the eldest of the Amaguin brothers, appeared with a handgun and successively
is of the opinion that the defendant acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to shot the brothers Pacifico, Diosdado and the fleeing Danilo. Diosdado, own kneeling,
have produced passion and obfuscation when he caught his querida in carnal gasping for breath and pleading for his life, was again shot by Willie who next fired anew
communication with a mutual acquaintance. at Pacifico. Meanwhile, Gildo and Celso repeatedly stabbed Pacifico who already lying
prostrate and defenseless.
The Court mentioned the view taken by the Supreme Court of Spain regarding a case
with similar state of facts: A man who kills a woman (his lover) for having caught her in *Other survivors also gave their respective versions. The defense however maintains
her underclothes with another man and afterwards shoots himself inflicting a serious that it was the Oro brothers who started the fight. Accused Gildo Amaguin recounted that
wound should be responsible for the act but with extenuating circumstance considered Pacifico with five others went to their house and approached his brother Celso and there
because he acted as such due to strong emotion which impelled him to perform the deceased together with his companions initiated a fight. Nenita Amaguin, mother of the
criminal act. The situation presents a sufficient impulse in the natural and ordinary course accused brothers, affirmed that her son Celso was indeed troublesome, but added that
to produce the violent passion and obfuscation which the law regards as a special reason Willie had no prior violations against the law. After a joint trial, and finding the version of
for extenuation the prosecution to be more credible, the CIF of Iloilo found Gildo Amaguin, guilty of
murder and Willie Amaguin as accomplice. Issue: Whether or not the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender be appreciated in favor of the accused? Ruling: Yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO BELLO, While it may have taken both Willie and Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the
Defendant-Appellant. fact is, they voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities before arrest could be
effected. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the
Facts: Guillermo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of following elements must be present: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b)
marriage. Guillermo was a 54 year old widower, and Alicias senior by 30 years. Prior to the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be
Alicias employment at Marings Place, the couple led a blissful life. Due to poverty, voluntary. All these requisites appear to have attended their surrender.
Alicia became an entertainer/public hostess at the said bar, and Guillermo used to watch
her there everyday; very much smitten by her beauty[1]. PEOPLE V DELA Cruz (1935 case)

However, on May 16, Guillermo saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater with a man, and 1 braza is a measure of six feet
surprised the man caressing her inside the movie house. Guillermo dragged her outside.

Francisco Ramos, his wife along with Ramos and Santoyo (4 persons) went to the house
Two weeks later, Guillermo visited Marings Place to ask Alicia for money, but the owner, of Remedios Dela Cruz (defendant) and asked her to join the wake of Sion. The
Maring (who was fantastically creative enough to name the bar after him), told him to go defendant and her friends started to walk on their way to their respective houses at
home and to leave Alicia alone because he was an old invalid. He proceeded to walk around 9 P.M. They were later on followed, 5 minutes later, by Francisco
home empty handed, but upon passing Bonifacio Street, he came across the Marasigan Rivera(deceased-victim) and Bautista. Rivera and Bautista overtook defendants party.
brothers who mocked him with the above stated remark. The self-loathing Guillermo When they reached a narrow part of the path, Rivera went ahead of Bautista. At that time
proceeded to Patys place and downed give glasses of Tuba. the members of the defendant's party were walking in single file and defendant was the
hindmost. She was about two brazas from the person immediately ahead of her.
By nighttime of the same day, Guillermo returned to Marings Place and did then and Francisco Ramos heard someone cry out "Aruy, Dios mio". He went back and found that
there stab Alicia several times. Realizing what he had done, he ran to Gumarca and Francisco Rivera had been stabbed under the right breast. The wounded man was taken
surrendered to the police there. He was found guilty by the Court of First Instance of to the hospital, where he died the next afternoon.
Quezon City of murder attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, alevosia,
and abuse of confidence and ungratefulness; The penalty for which is death; thus the Francisco Ramos testified that it took him about two minutes to go back to the place
automatic review of the Supreme Court. where Rivera was. He found and that Bautista was with the wounded man, and the
defendant had started back towards the house of mourning. He overtook her. She had a
ISSUES: Whether or not the victim should be given the benefit of the mitigating knife in her hand. When they reached the house where the wake was being held,
circumstance of passion or obfuscation, albeit his relationship with the victim being Remedios de la Cruz stuck the knife into a table and said that she stabbed Francisco
merely a common-law marriage? Rivera because he embraced her.

HELD: Yes. By stare decisis, passion or obfuscation on the part of the offender must Prosecutions version:
arise from legitimate and moral sentiments. Since common-law marriages are considered
unlawful in the Philippines, Obfuscation, when relationship is illegitimate, cannot be According to Bautista, the defendant waited on the right side of the path near some guava
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. trees and stabbed Francisco Rivera with a knife in her right hand when he arrived in front
of her; that the injured man cried "Aruy, Dios mio", while the defendant turned around
To answer this question, we must first differentiate the circumstances of this case with and returned to the house of Maria Inguit, saying "Icao ay malaon na" (hacia tiempo ya)
that of U.S. v Hicks. In the said case, the common-law wife of Mr. Hicks terminated her
relations with the American, and contracted new relations with a certain corporal. Mr. Defendant-appelants version:
Hicks shot his ex-common-law-wife when she refused to go home with him and resume
their relationship. Since they were not married, she was entitled to do so. What she did
cruel as it may be was legal in the eyes of law. Passion and obfuscation were not After they reached a narrow part a man suddenly threw his arms around her from behind,
appreciated in such a case, since: caught hold of her breasts and kissed her, and seized her in her private parts; that she
tried to free herself, but he held her and tried to throw her down; that when she felt weak
and could do nothing more against the strength of the man, she got a knife from her
pocket, opened it, and stabbed him in defense of her honor. She further testified that the
man who attacked her did not say anything; that she asked him who he was but he did belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking
not answer; that when she was assaulted she cried for help, saying "Madre mia; Dios is done by any means, methods or scheme; (5) the taking is with or without intent to gain;
mio"; that when she was seized, she was about twobrazasbehind her nearest companion; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against person
that when she was face to face with her assailant during the struggle she could scarcely or force upon things.
recognize his face in the darkness and could not be sure that it was Francisco Rivera.
These requisites are present in this case. First, there is no question that the cow belongs
She further testified that she was engaged in selling fruit, and that the fanknife in question to Narciso Gabriel. Petitioner's only defense is that in taking the animal he acted in good
was in a pocket of the overcoat she was wearing that day; that she went off with her faith and in the honest belief that it was the cow which he had lost. Second, petitioner,
friends without having an opportunity of changing her clothes. without the consent of the owner, took the cow from the custody of the caretaker,
Gardenio Agapay, despite the fact that he knew all along that the latter was holding the
animal for the owner, Narciso. Third, petitioner falsified his Certificate of Ownership of
Issue: Whether appellant is guilty of homicide. Large Cattle by asking Telen to antedate it prior to the taking to make it appear that he
owned the cow in question. Fourth, petitioner adopted "means, methods, or schemes" to
Held: No. This case is similar to the case of Ah chong. The court held that a person is deprive Narciso of his possession of his cow, thus manifesting his intent to gain. Fifth, no
not criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of facts, he does an act for which violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things attended the commission of
he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but would constitute the crime.
murder if he had known the true state of facts at the time, provided that the ignorance or
mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith P. D. No. 533 is not a special law. The penalty for its violation is in terms of the
classification and duration of penalties prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, thus
We cannot believe the testimony of Enrique Bautista, because Francisco Ramos, one of indicating that the intent of the lawmaker was to amend the Revised Penal Code with
the witnesses for the prosecution, testified that it was a dark night, and Bautista himself respect to the offense of theft of large cattle. In fact, 10 of the law provides:
said that he could scarcely see anyone in the darkness
The provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised
The appellant is an illiterate barrio girl, unable to write her name, and scarcely eighteen Penal Code, as amended, pertinent provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, as
years old. We do not believe her story is a fabrication. In this connection it is to be noted amended, all laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations which are
that almost immediately after the incident in question took place, the appellant said she inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
stabbed Francisco Rivera because he embraced her. It is not improbable that she was
reluctant to relate in the presence of all the people in the house of Maria Inguit (where The SC Affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification on the prison penalty.
the wake was held) the details of what had occurred.

The appellant stabbed the deceased only once, although she retained possession of the
knife, and undoubtedly could have inflicted other wounds on him if she had desired. In
other words she desisted as soon as he released her

Appelant acquitted.

Canta vs People

Facts: That on or about March 14, 1986, in the municipality of Malitbog, Southern Leyte,
Philippines, the above-named accused, Exuperancio Canta, with intent to gain steal and
carry away one (1) black female cow belonging to Narciso Gabriel valued at (P3,000.00)
without the knowledge and consent of the aforesaid owner, to his damage and prejudice
in the amount aforestated. It appears that at 5 o'clock in the afternoon of March 13, 1986,
Agapay(caretaker) took the cow to graze in the mountain of Pilipogan in Barangay
Candatag, about 40 meters from his hut. However, when he came back for it at past 9
o'clock in the morning of March 14, Agapay found the cow gone. He found hoof prints
which led to the house of Vallejos. He was told that petitioner Canta had taken the animal.

Narciso Gabriel reported the matter to the police of Malitbog, Southern Leyte. As a result,
Narciso and petitioner Exuperancio were called to an investigation. Petitioner admitted
taking the cow but claimed that it was his and that it was lost on December 3, 1985. He
presented two certificates of ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and another dated
February 27, 1985, to support his claim. Petitioner's Certificate of Ownership was,
however, denied by the municipal treasurer.

On 1997, trial court rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of the offense charged.
In giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution, the trial court stated from the
affidavits and testimonies of the complainant and his witnesses, it is indubitable that it
was accused Canta who actually took the cow away without the knowledge and consent
of either the owner. That the taking of the cow by the accused was done with strategy
and stealth considering that it was made at the time when Gardenio Agapay was at his
shelter-hut forty (40) meters away tethered to a coconut tree but separated by a hill.

The accused in his defense tried to justify his taking away of the cow by claiming
ownership however, failed to prove such ownership. Accused alleged that on February
27, 1985 he was issued a Certificate for his cow by Franklin Telen, a janitor at the Office
of the Municipal Treasurer of Padre Burgos, a neighboring town. On rebuttal Franklin
Telen denied in Court the testimony of the accused and even categorically declared that
it was only on March 24, 1986 that the accused brought the cow to the Municipal Hall of
Padre Burgos, when he issued a Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle for the cow,
and not on February 27, 1985.

CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the accused violated PD 533

Held:

P.D. No. 533, 2(c) defines cattle-rustling as

. . . the taking away by any means, methods or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any of the abovementioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or
whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force
upon things.

The crime is committed if the following elements concur: (1) a large cattle is taken; (2) it