CRIMINAL LAW NOV 10 CASES

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. People vs. Ural, GR No. L-30801, March 27, 1974 (case # 85)

TOPIC: Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

FACTS:

- The accused was a police officer who was at the time of the crime was the relieved guard the jail
- The deceased was a detention prisoner
- The court consider the credibility of the witnesses’ statement against the Accused:
They saw the accused inside the jail boxing the victim prisoner who was then drunk. After a short
interval, the accused returned with a bottle, poured its contents on the shirt of the victim then he ignited it
with a match and left at the cell.
- According to another’s testimony, the act of the accused of removing the deceased’ burning shirt was at
most an indication that he was “belatedly alarmed by the consequences of his evil act”.

ISSUE:

WON the accused’s act shall be appreciated as Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong to mitigate him
from criminal liability.

HELD:

NO. The trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.” It is manifest from the proven facts that the accused had no intent to
kill the victim. His design was only to maltreat him may be because in his drunken condition he was making a
nuisance of himself inside the detention cell. When the accused realized the fearful consequences of his felonious
act, he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.

Case No. 2

G.R. No. L-29066 March 25, 1970

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MARCELO AMIT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

The victim, Rufina Arellano, resisted the accused’s attempt to rape her by biting and scratching him. To subdue her,
the accused boxed her and then "held her on the neck and pressed it down" while she was lying on her back and he
was on top of her.

The accused was found guilty of the crime of rape with homicide.

While appellant does not question the correctness of the decision under review in so far as it finds him guilty of the
crime charged, he claims that the penalty of death imposed upon him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua in
view of the presence of three mitigating circumstances which the trial court should have considered in his favor,
namely: (1) plea of guilty; (2) voluntary surrender, and (3) lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as the one
actually committed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the penalty of death should be reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of the presence of mitigating
circumstances in the case present?

RULING: No.

The Court agrees that the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender have been proven, but
denies that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually
committed was similarly established.

These accused’s acts, the Court believe, were reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they actually produced
— the death of accused’s victim.

The penalty of Death prescribed in the last paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Acts Nos. 2632 and 4111 being an indivisible penalty, it has to be imposed regardless of the presence of
mitigating circumstances, especially in a case like the present where, according to the evidence of record, the crime
was committed with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength (first paragraph,
Article 63, Revised Penal Code).

CASE #3

Mitigating Circumstance - Lack of intention

People vs Regato G.R. No. L -36750 31 January 1984

Facts:

- Accused was buying cigarette in the victim’s sari-sari store. When the victim’s wife entertained the
accused, they suddenly threatened her.
- Afterwards, they robbed the victim’s house which is adjacent to the sari sari store. Upon the commission of
the crime, the accused wounded the victim which resulted to his eventual death.
- The accused were charged of robbery with homicide. The accused then contended that their lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be considered as a mitigating
circumstance.

Issue: WON the accused’s claim of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as mitigating
circumstance is valid.

Ruling: No. Intention is a mental process and is an internal state of mind. The intention must be judged by the
action, conduct and external acts of the accused. What men do is the best index of their intention. In the case at
bar, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated considering that the acts employed by the
accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they actually made – the death of the victim.
CASE #4 ALL

People vs. Callet

G.R. No. 135701. May 9, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. ELBERT CALLET y SABANAL, accused-appellant.

Facts: Accused stabbed the victim in the left shoulder near the base of the neck with a 9-inch hunting knife which
injury or wound caused the death of the victim. Thereafter, he ran towards the municipal hall to surrender.

Accused was found guilty of murder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

Issue: 1.WON accused is entitled of mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender ? YES .

2.WON accused claim that his liability should be mitigated by the fact that he had no intention to commit so grave a
wrong valid? NO.

Held:1. yes. accused ran toward the municipal building after the stabbing incident. On his way to the municipal
building, he admitted to Barangay Tanods Nilo Callet and Jesus Dagodog that he stabbed the victim.

Although he did not immediately turn over his weapon to them for fear of retaliation from the victim’s relatives, he
did so as soon as they reached the municipal building. Undoubtedly, the conduct he displayed was spontaneous as it
shows his interest to give himself up unconditionally to the authorities, thus saving the State the trouble and
expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.

2. NO. The lack of “intent” to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapon used,
the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is indicted. The fact that the accused used a 9inch
hunting knife in attacking the victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, clearly
shows that he intended to do what he actually did, and he must be held responsible therefor, without the benefit of
this mitigating circumstance.

The prescribed penalty therefor is reclusion perpetua to death.In view of the presence of the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender, the trial court correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua against the accused.

NOTES: Mitigating Circumstances; Voluntary Surrender; Voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been
actually arrested; that he surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent; and that the surrender
was voluntary.

5-all. Sufficient Provocation

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. PEDRO PAGAL y MARCELINO and JOSE
TORCELINO y TORAZO, defendants-appellants.

CONCEPCION, JR. J.:

FACTS: The accused, Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino, were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide against
the victim Gau Guan. The accused entered a plea of guilty and presented evidence to prove the mitigating
circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim immediately preceding the act and acting upon an
impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation which caused the obfuscation of the
appellants should be appreciated (NO)

RULING: Since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident,
that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the deceased, these two mitigating
circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as one.

The circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which—as in the case at bar—is planned
and calmly meditated before its execution.

The maltreatment that appellant claim the victim to have committed against them occurred much earlier than the
date of the commission of the crime. Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and
immediately preceding the act.

Case No. 6

G.R. No. 151978 July 14, 2004

ARTURO ROMERA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

- Arturo Romera (accused) and his friends were heading to Biasong to play volleyball.
- Along the way, Franklin Generol made fun of Bebing Zuluetas; which Roy Mangaya-ay (victim) didn’t like; he
sided with Zuluetas and scolded Generol.
- Accused who sided with Generol threatened the others then left.
- The victim and his friends arrived in Balaguan, Romera was seen carrying a bolo waiting for them.
- Accused chased them and the victim, who slipped in the mud, was stabbed. The victim woke up at the
provincial hospital after surgery.
- The accused contends that the victim provoked him to a fit of anger when the latter woke him up and
thrust a bolo at him without warning as he opened the door. Also, by hacking and destroying the bamboo
wall of his house, and endangering the lives of his children, the victim also obfuscated his thinking and
reasoning processes.
- RTC discounted petitioners story of self-defense. It found that when petitioner got hold of the bolo, there
was no more danger to his life.
o Romera was convicted of frustrated homicide.
- The CA affirmed the trial court's

ISSUE: Whether the mitigating circumstances of provocation and passion or obfuscation present in this case
RULING:

YES. Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him, and hacking the bamboo walls of his house are, in our
view, sufficient provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his thinking, more so when the lives of
his wife and children are in danger. Romera stabbed the victim as a result of those provocations and while he was
still in a fit of rage.

The Court also stressed that provocation and passion or obfuscation are not two separate mitigating
circumstances. They should be treated together as one mitigating circumstance.

7. ALL - Mitigating Circumstance – Vindication of a grave offense

US vs Ampar G.R No. L-12883 26 Nov. 1917

Malcolm, J.:

Facts:

- During a fiesta, the accused, 70 years old, was asking the victim for some roast pig. The victim responded,
“There is no more. Come here and I will make a roast pig out of you”
- The accused was provoked and struck the victim using an axe. The victim died as a result of said attack.
- The COI found the accused guilty of the crime of murder with vindication of a grave offense as mitigating
circumstance.

Issue: WON the crime is committed in vindication of a grave offense against the accused.

Ruling: Yes. The lower court took into consideration the mitigating circumstance that the act was committed in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony. The offense which the accused was
endeavoring to vindicate would to an average person be considered as a mere trifle. But, since to this defendant, an
old man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests, it is
proper to give the accused the benefit of this mitigating circumstance.

CASE # 8

G.R. No. L-45373 March 31, 1937

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PRIMO PARANA,

FACTS:

Primo Parana was asked by one Lamay to buy him a beer, the former failed to comply immediately with Lamay’s
request and so heated conversation arises between the two. As they were raising their voices to one another, the
deceased Manuel Montinola slapped him in the presence of many persons.

The following day, Parana purchased a hunting knife, which is the same knife used by him in attacking the deceased.

As Montinola was playing in the upper story of one Lapuos, Parana waited for the deceased at a merely store until
the latter came down,and attacked him by stabbing which led to his death.

ISSUE:
 WON Parana acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against him

HELD:

Yes

The mitigating circumstance that he had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against
him a few hours before, when he was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons, must likewise be
taken into consideration. Although this offense, which engenders perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, this
court is of the opinion that the influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was
inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was committed. Lastly, the other mitigating circumstance that the
appellant had voluntarily surrendered himself to the agents of the authorities must be considered

9. People vs. Diokno and Diokno, G.R. No. L-45100; 63 Phil. 601, October 26, 1936(case #93)

TOPIC: Immediate vindication of a grave offense

FACTS:

- The two accused was father and son who was against with the relationship and secret marriage of the
daughter with a Chinese businessman (victim).
- The deceased ran upstairs when he saw the father and brother of his sweetheart.
- The two accused stabbed the victim when they caught him from a house where he and the daughter of the
accused were staying.
- He begged for his life but the accused continued to inflict serious wounds unto the former.
- Until a neighbor fired a gunshot to call for attention of a police. Thereafter, the accused were brought to
the police headquarters after admitting the evil act.

ISSUE:

WON the act of the two accused can be considered as amitigating circumstance?

HELD:

The presence of the fifth mitigating circumstance of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, that is, immediate
vindication of a grave offense to said accused, may be taken into consideration in favor of the two accused. There
was no interruption from the time the offense was committed to the vindication thereof. The herein accused belong
to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their
honor and causes disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the home and at the same time spreads uneasiness
and anxiety in the minds of the members thereof.

The fact that the accused saw the deceased run upstairs when he became aware of their presence, as if he
refused to deal with them after having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus strong enough to produce in
their mind a fit of passion which blinded them and led them to commit the crime with which they are charged.

CASE No. 10
 G.R. No. 138984 June 4, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
DENNIS TORPIO y ESTRERA, appellant.

FACTS:

- Anthony Rapas (victim) and Dennis Torpio (accused) were having a drinking session.
- When the accused did not want to drink anymore, the victime got angry and then bathed defendant with gin.
- Victim then boxed and tried to stab the accused but failed he was crawling under the table.
- Accused was able to escape and went to his house to get his knife. There, defendant's father tried to stop him
from pursuing Rapas - but failed to do so.
- The accused returned then looked for Rapas and successfully stabbed him.
- The morning after, he voluntarily surrendered to the police.
- The trial court found the accused guilty of murder qualified by treachery or evident premeditation but found
mitigating circumstances.
- The accused appealed to the SC, as the penalty was reclusion perpetua.

ISSUES: WON all the mitigating circumstances the trial court found are present.

RULING:

NO. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and the immediate vindication of a grave offense were
only present.

Voluntary surrender was present as defendant lost no time in submitting himself to the authorities by going to
Boy Estrera, a police officer.

The immediate vindication of a grave offense was appreciated as defendant was humiliated and wounded by
the Rapay. Although the unlawful aggression had ceased , it was nonetheless a grave offense.

Sufficient provocation, however, cannot be considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave
offense. The two circumstances should only be considered as one because it arose from one and the same
incident.

11-A. Passion or obfuscation

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. DELFIN MUIT, defendant-appellant.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS: As the victim passed by the house of the accused, the accused invited him over to take a rest. The accused
then confronted the victim as why the latter always visits his wife. The victim replied that being the barangay zone
auditor, he had to confer with the accused's wife on barangay matters as the latter was the barangay zone president.
Since these meetings spawned rumors around the barrio that they were having an affair, the accused got angry as he
confronted the victim. To avoid any trouble, the victim proceeded to move out of the house. The accused followed
the victim and fired his gun at him, suffering 3 gunshot wounds which caused his death. The accused was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of muder.
ISSUE: Whether or not passion or obfuscation should be appreciated where shooting of victim aroused by fit of
jealousy due to rumors of amorous relationship of victim with wife of accused (YES)

RULING: There can be no question that the accused was driven strongly by jealousy because of the rumors regarding
the amorous relationship between his wife and the victim. The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous
relations with a woman is a powerful stimulant to jealousy and is sufficient to produce loss of reason and self-control.
In other words, it is a powerful instigator of jealousy and prone to produce anger and obfuscation.

CASE #12B

US vs. HICKS

TOPIC: passion or obfuscation

FACTS:

Accused Hicks visited the house of Sola his former mistress.

He shooked hands and started conversing with Sola’s current lover. But, Current told the accused that Sola did not
want to live with Hicks anymore, which prompted the accused to pull out his revolver and fired at Sola who was
close by in the sala. The bullet hit the left side of her breast.

Hicks gave himself up to the police even before the police received the information of the killing.

The trial court convicted him with the crime of murder with the penalty of death.

Short version: Accused visited the house of Sola, who was his former mistress. Accused and Sola’s current lover had a
misunderstanding which resulted to the accused pulling out his revolver and fired a shot at Sola in the chest, which
caused her death. The trial court convicted him of murder with a penalty of death.

ISSUE: WON accused is entitled of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.

Held:

NO. The court held that there is no mitigating circumstances present in the case, 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 the only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are
such as originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.

13 – A US vs. De la Cruz G.R. L- 7094 29 March 1912

Carson, J.:
Facts:

Accused, upon discovering that his querida had a flagrant relationship with another man, killed her.

Issue: WON the accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation
in committing the crime of homicide.

Ruling: Yes. The impulse upon which the accused acted and which naturally “produced passion and obfuscation” was
not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him, but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him
and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. As said by the SC of Spain in the above cited decision (US
vs Hicks), this was a sufficient impulse in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and
obfuscation which the law declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by
the court.

CASE NO #14B

PEOPLE VS. GERMINA

TOPIC: mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion

Accused: Elpidio Germina

Victim: Raymundo Angeles

Facts:

Accused, armed with a revolver, arrived at the victim residence. A heated conversation took place between victims
relatives and the accused concerning a quarrel that transpired earlier between accused mentally retarded brother
and the victim.

Accused , upon spotting the arrival of the victim, drew his gun which prompted the victim and his relatives to
scamper for safety. Accused fired on the back of the victims’ neck which caused the the latter’s death.

Accused voluntarily gave himself up to SPO2 Marteja right after shooting.

Issue: WON accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and passion.

Held: YES.

Voluntary surrender was correctly appreciated because it appeared spontaneous and unconditional, as appellant’s
claim that he voluntarily gave himself up to SPO2 Marteja right after shooting Raymund remains undisputed. Passion
also existed as it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or legitimate feelings. The trial court’s observation on this
point is worth reiterating: Accused committed the serious crime due to the maltreatment/physical injuries inflicted
by the victim on his mentally retarded brother, that triggered his anger which diminish weaken the exercise of his
power.

All told, accused should be convicted of the lesser crime of Homicide which, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, carries with it the penalty of reclusion temporal. Considering the presence of two (2) mitigating circumstances
,the imposable penalty is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence to be meted appellant should be within the range of prision correccional, and the maximum
thereof, within the range of prision mayor.

Notes.—Passion and obfuscation is not mitigating when the accused acted in a spirit of lawlessness. (People vs.
Cabarrubias, 223 SCRA 363 [1993])
 Obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings—the turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or
fight should not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured or offended to such a
degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control. (People vs. Bautista, 254 SCRA 621 [1996])

There is passional obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion so provoked by
prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. (People vs. Valles,
267 SCRA 103 [1997])

15-A. (1)

TOPIC: voluntary surrender, (2) passion and obfuscation, (3) incomplete defense of a relative, (4) lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

INOCENCIO GONZALEZ, JR., accused-appellant.

GONZAGA REYES, J.:

FACTS: A pregnant woman was shot to death in the course of her husband’s (Noel Andres) altercation with the accused
and his son over traffic along Loyola Memorial Park, where the two vehicles almost collided. The accused stated that
he did not know he shot somebody until someone got out of the vehicle carrying a bloodied small boy. The trial court
found the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and accordingly
sentenced him to death.

The accused assigns as error the trial court’s rejection of the mitigating circumstances pleaded by the defense which
allegedly attended the commission of the crime, i.e., (1) voluntary surrender, (2) passion and obfuscation, (3)
incomplete defense of a relative, and (4) lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. The accused asserts that these
mitigating circumstances were duly proven during the trial and are supported by the evidence on record.

ISSUE: Whether or not the (4) mitigating circumstances pleaded by the accused can be considered (NO)

RULING:

1. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a
relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, pleaded by the defense, were not convincingly proved
and none can be considered in the imposition of penalties. The testimony of prosecution witness contradicts
the accused’s pretense of voluntary surrender. A witness testified that the accused drove away towards the
gate of the memorial park while he was questioning him after the shooting and had not Andres and the
onlookers blocked his path, the accused could have fled the scene of the crime.

2. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. For this mitigating circumstance
to be considered, it must be shown that: (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation
was committed by the intended victim; (2) that the crime was committed within a reasonable length of time
from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the accused’s mind; and that (3)
“the passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge.”
Andres’ act of shouting at the accused’s son, who was then a nurse and of legal age, is not sufficient to
produce passion and obfuscation as it is claimed by the accused. Besides, the accused’s son, Dino was
shouting back at Noel Andres. It was not a case wherein the accused’s son appeared helpless and oppressed
that the accused lost his reason and shot at the FX of Noel Andres. The same holds true for the accused’s
claim of provocation on the part of Noel Andres. Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit
the wrong committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. The
aggressive behavior of Noel Andres towards the accused and his son may be demeaning or humiliating but
it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at the complainant’s vehicle.
 3. The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative is also
unmeritorious since the act of Andres in cursing and shouting at the accused and his son do not amount to
an unlawful aggression against them, Dino Gonzalez.

4. The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is
likewise devoid of merit. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between
the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention
of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode
of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim. The accused’s use of a gun, although not
deliberately sought nor employed in the shooting, should have reasonably placed the accused on guard of
the possible consequences of his act. The use of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes committed.

Case No. 16

PEOPLE VS. WILSON LAB-EO

G.R. 133438

Facts:
- In the public market where Segundina displayed her rumming business, the accused sat down in front
of Segundina (victim)his aunt and uttered something to her in a very soft voice.
- The two witnessed could not make out the conversation because of the sound coming from a running
motor engine.
- What they only heard was Segundinas answer which was uttered in a loud angry voice koma-an ka tay
baka mahigh bloodac (you get out because I might suffer high blood). They saw accused leave.
- When accused returned and stabbed the victim in the back. Appellant’s jacket was left hanging on the
knife handle until Julie removed both the jacket and knife.
- Accused ran into Tadian Police Station to surrender.
- Segundina died in the morning of the following day (October 22, 1996) due to hypovolomic shock
secondary to massive hemorrhage
- The trial court found the appellant guilty of the crime of murder in its Decision i dated January 16, 1998
and imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim of P50,000, actual
damages of P125,500, and costs of suit.
ISSUE:
WON there is a mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation and sufficient provocation
HELD:
In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the following elements should
concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act
which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length
of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
In asking the appellant to leave, the victim did not do anything unlawful. There is an absolute lack of proof that
the appellant was utterly humiliated by the victims utterance. Nor was it shown that the victim made that remark
in an insulting and repugnant manner. Neither was the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation by the
victim proven. From the testimonies of witnesses, it was shown that it was in fact the appellant who provoked
the victim. Moreover, this Court has held that the provocation sufficient to mitigate an offense must be
proportionate to the gravity of the retaliatory act.
Treachery attended the stabbing of Segundina Cay-no, thereby qualifying the killing to murder which is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. However, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
the appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Case No. 17A

G.R. No. 139907. March 28, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARCELO BATES, Accused-Appellant.

MARCELO BATES, JR. (At-Large), accused.

FACTS:

The victim, Jose Boholst, together with his companions, was heading back home when, while they were along a trail
leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from the thick banana plantation surrounding the
trail, aiming his firearm at Jose Boholst. The two grappled for the possession of the gun when suddenly, the gun fired,
hitting Bates. At that instant, Marcelo Bates and his son Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and nephew of Carlito, emerged
from the banana plantation with a bolo. They immediately attacked Jose hacking him several times. Jose fell to the
ground and rolled but Marcelo and his son kept on hacking him. Marcelo then surrendered himself to the barangay
captain.

The accused invoked passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation may be considered in favor of the accused

RULING:

No. To be considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not
from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment.

In the present case, clearly, Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by Jose. However, a
distinction must be made between the first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second time that the former
hacked the latter. When Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrained
from doing anything else after that, he could have validly invoked the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation. But when, upon seeing his brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was already
prostrate on the ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case of someone acting out of anger in the
spirit of revenge.
18b. People vs. Pinca, GR No. 129256; 318 SCRA 270, November 17, 1999(case #102)

TOPIC: Voluntary Surrender

FACTS:

- On 16 January 1995, Gerry Abenir after disembarking from a passenger bus which he rode from Tagbilaran
City to Balilihan, Bohol, together with a friend entered Madonna’s Bake Shop.

- Gerry saw Joel Pinca made a remark that somebody splashed liquor. If it were not for the presence of the
shop owner, he would have inflicted injuries to the person responsible. Gerry and the accused rode on a
passenger motorcycle driven by one Wilfredo Lumantas on their way home to Del Carmen Weste and
Dorol, Balilihan, Bohol.

Issue: Whether or not the accused act is voluntary surrender.

HELD:

If the only reason for the supposed surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose arrest is
inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous and hence not voluntary.—For voluntary surrender to be appreciated
as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested,
(2) the offender surrendered to a person in authority, and (3) the surrender was voluntary. If the only reason for the
supposed surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not
spontaneous and hence not voluntary.

The act of a suspect of going to the police station only “to clear his name” does not show any intent to
surrender unconditionally to the authorities.—Appellant’s actions after the incident are not marks of voluntary
surrender. Denying to the police any personal knowledge of the crime, he even tried to distance himself from the
place of the incident by going to Tagbilaran City. It was only when he learned that he had become a suspect and that
the police were looking for him even in Tagbilaran that he finally went to the police station, but only “to clear his
name.” Such acts do not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.

Case No. 19A

G.R. Nos. 54344-45 January 10, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
WILLIE AMAGUIN, GILDO AMAGUIN AND CELSO AMAGUIN, accused.

WILLIE AMAGUIN AND GILDO AMAGUIN, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

The victim, Pacifico Oro, was escorting his brothers, Diosdado, Hernando, Danilo, and some other guests to the plaza
for a ride home, when suddenly, they were apprehended by Celso Amiguin, holding a knife, and Gildo, Celso’s younger
brother, holding a slingshot known as “Indian Pana”.
Gildo aimed the dart from his slingshot at Danilo, which hit the latter on the chest, Celso hacked Pacifico. Gildo then
stabbed Diosdado with a knife.

Thereafter, Willie, the eldest of the Amaguin brothers, appeared with a handgun and successively shot the brothers
Pacifico, Diosdado and the fleeing Danilo, who was only hit on the lips. Diosdado, kneeling, gasping for breath and
pleading for his life, was again shot by Willie who next fired anew at Pacifico. Meanwhile, Gildo and Celso repeatedly
stabbed Pacifico who already lying prostrate and defenseless.

Later on, Willie and Guildo turned themselves in. Gildo was charged with the crime of murder and Willie as an
accomplice. Both invoked the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor on both of the
accused

RULING:

Yes. While it may have taken both Willie and Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the 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 following elements must be present: (a)
the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the
surrender must be voluntary. 28 All these requisites appear to have attended their surrender.

20.

G.R. No. 107328 September 26, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. EFREN DULOS,

FACTS:

Dulos paid Susan and Alice 100 each to entertain some male guests. Alice left early, while Susan stayed. Susan was
offered P500 to check in with one of Dulos’ guest. When she got the money, she changed her mind and argued with
her customer. Alice found out and called Gara, a military police assigned at the said hotel as watchman to intervene.
When Dulos found out about it, he confronted Susan with her boyfriend Paul. Paul apologized saying that his
girlfriend does not accept intimate dates. The two with Alice and some other friend left to go home. Dulos followed
them with a gun and they fled but Dulos was able to overtake them. Dulos demanded the money back and Susan
gave him back P100. She pleaded with Dulos and later wrestling the gun and she was violently pushed. Paul pleaded
for mercy but Dulos shoot him twice.

ISSUE: WON the trial court failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender of the accused?

HELD

Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where there was no conscious effort on
the part of the accused to voluntarily surrender.—The generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot
be appreciated in accused-appellant’s favor. In order that voluntary surrender may be appreciated, it is necessary
that “it must be spontaneous and made in such manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the
trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.” Here, there was no conscious effort on the
part of accused-appellant to voluntarily surrender to the military authorities when he went to Camp Siongco, Dinaig,
Maguindanao after the fateful incident. As he himself admitted in his testimony, he was not placed under custody
by the military authorities as he was free to roam around as he pleased. He went to said camp to take up residence,
not to voluntarily surrenderto the authorities. Likewise, his claim that he surrendered his gun to a certain Major
Bermones, one of his guests at the Old Imperial Hotel, is not substantiated by evidence. Even if it were, that fact
could not be appreciated in his favor. Where an accused merely surrendered the gun he used in killing, without
surrendering his person to the authorities, there is no voluntary surrender.

TOPIC: Mitigating Circumstance – Voluntary Surrender

21 – A) Andrada vs People G.R. No. 135222 04 March 2005

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.:

Facts:

- In a restaurant, a woman passed by the victim and the two started talking.
- The accused then became angry to the victim and scolded him.
- The victim’s companion told that he was a member of the PH Constabulary and told the accused to pay his
bill and leave.
- The accused then heed the advice. However, he suddenly started to attack the victim. The attack led to the
victim’s eventual death.
- Accused was found guilty of murder.
- The accused insisted that his voluntary surrender after the commission of the crime should be considered
as a mitigating circumstance

Issue: WON the accused claim of voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstance should be appreciated.

Ruling: No. Evidence for the prosecution shows that the petitioner, after attacking the victim, ran away. He was
apprehended by responding police officers in a waiting shed. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the
surrender must be spontaneous, made in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses that would be necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Hence, the surrender was not spontaneous.

CASE No. 22

PEOPLE VS CRISOSTOMO
G.R. No. L-32243
April 15, 1988
TOPIC: Article 13 Par. 7 of RPC (Voluntary Surrender and Confession of Guilt)

FACTS:
- Eugenio Crisostomo (accused) killed Romeo Geronimo (victim) by shooting the victim with a revolver when
he refused Crisostomo’s invitation to have a drink.

- The accused first entered a plea of not guilty but changed it to a plea of guilty to a lesser charge
of homicide and prayed that he be allowed to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and
admission of guilt asserting that although he hid himself from the authorities for ten (10) days,
he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities thereafter upon the advice of his parents.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner should be gr anted with the mitigating circumstance of v oluntary
surrender and confession of guilt.
HELD: No. The requisites of mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty are: (1) that the offender
spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the
competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of
evidence of prosecution.

In the present case the appellant offered to enter a plea guilty to a lesser offense of homicide only after some
evidence of the prosecution had been presented. He reiterated his offer after prosecution rested his case. This is
certainly not mitigating.

23-A. Plea of guilty

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, ET AL., defendants. JAIME
JOSE Y GOMEZ,BASILIO PINEDA,JR., alias “BOY,”
EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO and ROGELIO CAÑAL
Y SEVILLA, defendants-appellants.

PER CURIAM:

FACTS: The 4 accused went to the ABS Studio, and that, on learning that the victim (Miss De la Riva) was there, they
made plans to wait for her and to follow her. They followed her car and snatched her and took her to the Swanky
Hotel where they succeeded in pursuing carnal knowledge to the victim. The accused were charged with the crime of
forcible abduction with rape. Upon arraignment, the accused Basilio Pineda, Jr. pleaded guilty to the charge. The court
found all the accused guilty of the crime charged and sentenced each of them to the death penalty. Pineda claims
that insofar as he is concerned there was a mistrial resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. He contends that because
the charge against him and his co-appellants is a capital offense and the amended complaint cited aggravating
circumstances, which, if proved, would raise the penalty to death, it was the duty of the court to insist on his presence
during all stages of the trial.

ISSUE: Whether or not the presence of accused Pineda is still required during all stages of trial despite his plea of guilty
(NO)

RULING: While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged
in the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is capital, for the
admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the
crime. Because of the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda’s plea of guilty, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to
receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in court.

24. G.R. Nos. 131856-57. July 9, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,vs. WILLIAM MONTINOLA

FACTS : William Montinola was charged with robbery with homicide and illegal possession of firearm. At noon of
November 18, 1996, appellant boarded a jeepney and all of a sudden drew his gun and directed Jose Reteracion to
hand over his money or else he would be killed. Appellant aimed the firearm at the neck of the victim and fired
successive shots at thelatter.

On January 1997, William entered a plea of “not guilty” to both charges. Joint trial of the two cases was conducted.
However, on 19 February 1997, after the prosecution had presented three witnesses, William moved to withdraw
his previous plea of “not guilty” and when re arraigned, he pleaded “guilty” to both charges, trial on the merits
continued.

ISSUE: WON the trial court failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt in his favor.
HELD:

The contention is without merit. The trial court was correct in not crediting in favor of William the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty, since the change of his plea from not guilty to guilty was made only after the
presentation of some evidence for the prosecution. To be entitled to such mitigating circumstance, the accused
must have voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution. The third requisite is wanting in the present case.

Case No. 25A

[G.R. No. 146247. September 17, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, v. EDGAR DAWATON, accused.

FACTS:

Dawaton, accused, together with the victim and two others, had a drinking session. Leonides, the victim, was already
drunk and decided to sleep. After the victim had gone to sleep, Dawaton stood up and left for his house. When he
returned he brought with him a knife. Without a word, he stabbed Leonides near the base of his neck. Awakened and
surprised, Leonides got up and blurted: "Bakit Pare, bakit?" Instead of answering, Edgar again stabbed the victim on
the upper part of his neck.

Leonides attempted to flee but Dawaton prevented him from running away but the accused only stopped stabbing
the victim when the latter already died. Dawaton then ran away towards the house of his uncle where he was then
arrested.

The accused did not deny that he stabbed Leonides but insisted that he was provoked into stabbing him.

In Dawaton’s versin, a drunk and angry Leonides demanded that they - he and Dawaton - return candles (magbalikan
[tayo] ng kandila). Leonides was godfather of a son of Edgar. Leonides also cursed and threatened to hang a grenade
on him. Alarmed, Dawaton got himself a knife.

The accused himself admitted that he stabbed the victim three (3) times before his mind went blank and could no
longer recall what he did after that.

Dawaton avers that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and outraged feeling analogous or
similar to passion and obfuscation. The accused would also want the Court to reconsider the penalty imposed on him
on account of his not being a recidivist. He contends that an appreciation of this factor calls for a reduction of the
penalty.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty
2. Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of outraged feeling analogous or
similar to passion and obfuscation
3. Whether or not non-recidivism, may be considered as a mitigating circumstance which will necessarily reduce
the penalty
RULING:

(1) No. While the accused offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with murder
for which he had already entered a plea of not guilty. The Court ruled that an offer to enter a plea of guilty
to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an attenuating circumstance under the provisions of Art. 13 of
The Revised Penal Code because to be voluntary the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged. Nor can
the accused avail of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as he himself admitted that he was
arrested at his uncle's residence.

(2) There is no factual basis to credit the accused with the mitigating circumstance of outraged feeling analogous
or similar to passion and obfuscation. Other than his self-serving allegations, there was no evidence that the
victim threatened him with a grenade. The witnesses testified that there was no prior altercation or
disagreement between Dawaton and Leonides during the drinking spree, and they did not know of any
reason for Edgar's hostility and violence.

(3) Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance the presence of which increases the penalty. The converse
however, that is, non-recidivism, is not a mitigating circumstance which will necessarily reduce the penalty.
Nonetheless, the Court held that the trial court erred in not appreciating the alternative circumstance of
intoxication in favor of the accused. Under Art. 15 of The Revised Penal Code, intoxication of the offender
shall be considered as a mitigating circumstance when the offender commits a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony. Otherwise, when
habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. There being no indication that
the accused was a habitual drunkard or that his alcoholic intake was intended to fortify his resolve to commit
the crime, the circumstance of intoxication should be credited in his favor.

26b. Cimafranca vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 94408, February 14, 1991 (case #110)

TOPIC: returning of malversed funds analogous to voluntary surrender

FACTS:

- The accused was a Provincial Fisheries Inspector for 6 years. Reappointed as Fishery Aide for 1 year. During
his term, he was issued a revolver and an engine.
- When his appointment expired, he was advised by the Governor to return the property accountabilities.
OIC of the Office of the Treasurer also wrote him a follow up letter to return the revolver and the engine.
The accused did not comply.
- The Provincial Auditor conducted a property audit ,for therein listed government officials and one of them
was the accused .
- They found out that accused, although separated from the service, had not yet settled his accountabilities
despite demands made upon him. Because of failure, he was charged of Malversation of Public Property.
- According to the defense, the engine was stolen and the revolver fell into the sea while patrolling. Only
after 2 years of diligent search of the properties he only had the chance to return them. Provided that he
returned them during his trial.

ISSUE: WON the accused shall be given credence for a mitigating circumstance.

HELD: This Court has made the consistent pronouncement that the return of the funds malversed is not a defense
and will not be an exempting circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the criminal liability of the accused. At
best it can be a mitigating circumstance.

In this case, it took the petitioner several years before he returned the government property, such
circumstance cannot be considered a special mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender, as the trial
court did credit to the petitioner. Said government property appear to be under the control and possession of
petitioner all the time. There was no reason why he could not return the same promptly, if not soonest to the
government. The much delayed return of the property must be a desperate act and afterthought of petitioner when
he realized that all possible hope of exoneration was lost during the trial.

CASE No. 22

PEOPLE VS CRISOSTOMO
G.R. No. L-32243
 April 15, 1988
TOPIC: Article 13 Par. 7 of RPC (Voluntary Surrender and Confession of Guilt)

FACTS:
- Eugenio Crisostomo (accused) killed Romeo Geronimo (victim) by shooting the victim with a revolver when
he refused Crisostomo’s invitation to have a drink.

- The accused first entered a plea of not guilty but changed it to a plea of guilty to a lesser charge
of homicide and prayed that he be allowed to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and
admission of guilt asserting that although he hid himself from the authorities for ten (10) days,
he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities thereafter upon the advice of his parents.

ISSUE:
WON the petitioner should be granted with the mitigating circumstance of v oluntary surrender
and confession of guilt.

HELD:

No. The requisites of mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty are: (1) that the offender spontaneously
confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that
is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence of prosecution.

In the present case the appellant offered to enter a plea guilty to a lesser offense of homicide only after some
evidence of the prosecution had been presented. He reiterated his offer after prosecution rested his case. This is
certainly not mitigating.