Aquino, JP

People vs. Pagal GR No. L-32040, October 25, 1977 EN BANC Ponente: Conception, Jr., J. Topic: Sufficient provocation or threat

CRIM1

Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, with 4 generic aggravating circumstances. They stole the amount of P1,281.00 and killed Gaugan, their then employer, by stabbing him with an ice pick and clubbing him with an iron pipe. During the arraignment, the counsel for the accused informed the court of their intention to plead guilty, provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation. The judge asked if that is truly what the accused wanted to do, and the accused agreed. The accused were arraigned and both pleaded guilty. The accused were then allowed to present their evidence, which were claims of maltreatment/ill-treatment by the deceased. After they rested their case, the prosecution presented the statements of the accused and other pertinent documents. After considering the aggravating circumstances, and accepting only the mitigating circumstance of pleading guilty, the court rendered its decision finding both accused GUILTY, and sentenced to death. The case was elevated to the SC for mandatory review on account of the death penalty imposed. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation, and passion or obfuscation as claimed via evidence by the accused. HELD: No. The trial court found the appellants contention devoid of merit. First, mitigating circumstances presented can only be counted as one, because they arose from the same incident. Second, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly meditated before its execution. Third, The maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against them occurred much earlier than the date of the commission of the crime. Provocation, in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. [When the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, he is deemed to have admitted all the material facts alleged in the information. A plea of guilty when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even for a capital offense without the introduction of further evidence. ] (optional, not necessary to the topic, just an FYI) After reviewing the case, the court held that there was only one generic aggravating circumstance, instead of four, and this was then offset by the only accepted mitigating circumstance of the guilty plea. Through this, the appellants were each imposed upon with the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.

FACTS: