Sunteți pe pagina 1din 94

CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 1

a.Memorize Article 12 in relation to Sec. 6 of RA 9344 “SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
following are exempt from criminal liability: offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20
a lucid interval. of this Act.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
without first obtaining the permission of the same court. proceedings in accordance with this Act.
2. A person under nine years of age. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be accordance with existing laws.”
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this
Code. B. Distinguish between the effect of a justifying circumstance
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the and an exempting circumstance regarding the existence of a
court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding crime and civil liability.
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family 1.A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does
who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, not transgress the law, that is he does not commit any crime in
he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act
mentioned in said Art. 80. as well as in the intention of the actor. The act of the person in
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, itself is both just and lawful.
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a criminal.
of causing it. No civil liability, except in paragraph 4 (causing damage to
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. another in state of necessity).
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of 1.In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal
an equal or greater injury. liability. The act is not justified but the actor is not criminally
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when liable. There is civil liability except in paragraphs 4 and 7
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause (causing an injury by mere accident; failing to perform an act
required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable
Article 12 of the RPC is deemed repealed by the provision of RA cause) of Art 12 which does not mention par 4 and 7.
9344 declaring a child 15 years of age or under exempt from criminal
liability. The law provides that:
C. State the basis for each of the exempting circumstances.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 2

In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and
no criminal liability arises. Technically, one who acts by virtue of freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.
any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime, although
by the complete absence of any of the conditions which E.1. Discuss People v. So, G.R. No. 104664, 28 August 1995.
constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability PEOPLE V ELYBOY SO Y ORBES
arise. Before us is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
Burden of proof – any of the circumstances mentioned in Art of Manila, Branch XLIX in Criminal Case No. 91-95478, convicting
12 is a matter of defense and the same must be proved by the the appellant Elyboy So of the crime of murder and imposing on him
defendant to the satisfaction of the court. the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
*In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the On 10 June 1991, Elyboy So was charged with murder before the
agent of the crime. Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom Regional Trial Court of Manila for the death of Mario Tuquero. The
and the use of intelligence. Hence, in paragraph 1, 2 & 3 of Art information reads:
12, the imbecile, insane, or minor, not having intelligence, does That on or about June 3, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
not act with intent. The person acting under any of the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art 12, not with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation,
having freedom of action, does not act with intent. In paragraph 4 attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one
of Art 12, it is specifically stated that the actor causes an injury by Mario Tuquero y Alas by then and there stabbing him several times
mere accident without the intention of causing it. with a fan knife on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon
said Mario Tuquero Y Alas mortal wounds which were the direct and
D. Explain Par. 1 of Article 12. immediate cause of his death thereafter.
The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility is based on Contrary to law.1
the complete absence of intelligence, an element of On 19 July 1991, appellant, assisted by counsel de officio, pleaded
voluntariness. "NOT GUILTY."2
After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court handed down its
E. Distinguish between and insane person and an imbecile. decision on 17 January 1995, the dispositive portion of which reads:
While the imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby
liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he rendered finding the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of "Murder" qualified by treachery, as defined in and penalized
acted during a lucid interval.
by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby condemns the
During lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence.
said Accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with
An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
all the accessory penalties of the law. The Accused is hereby
development comparable to that of children between two and
ordered to indemnify the heirs of Mario Tuquero in the amount of
seven years of age. An imbecile within the meaning of Article 12
P50,000.00. The period during which the Accused was detained in
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 3

the City Jail shall be credited to him in full provided that he agreed in brother-in-law, Mario Tuquero, who will arrive later with his sister
writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations Emy. Elyboy was prevailed upon to stay on as he was also interested
of the City Jail of Manila. With costs against the Accused. in meeting Mario (tsn, Oct. 23, 1991, p. 14).
SO ORDERED.3 Before Emy and Mario arrived, Edgar invited Elyboy and Ronnie to
The facts established by prosecution's evidence are summarized in watch the dance in the playground which was part of the fiesta
the People's brief as follows: celebration. At the playground, Esteban met Edgar, Elyboy and
On June 2, 1991, at around 9:00 p.m., Elyboy So met his lady friend, Ronnie and informed them that Emy and Mario had arrived and
Teresita Domingo, in a jeep in Quiapo bound for Pasig. Since instructed them to buy beer
Elyboy's house which is located in 2969-D Ramon Magsaysay (tsn, October 23, 1991, pp. 15-18).
Boulevard, Sta. Mesa, Manila, is walking distance to Teresita's house Edgar, Elyboy and Ronnie proceeded to buy beer while Esteban
located in 2050 Abad Santos Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, Teresita went home ahead of them (tsn, October 23, 1991, p. 19).
requested Elyboy to bring her home (tsn, Oct. 23, 1991, pp. 6-7; Nov. After buying beer, they proceeded to the house. Upon arriving in the
12, 1991, p. 7). house, Emy introduced Elyboy to her boyfriend Mario (tsn, Oct. 23,
While walking along Araullo Street on their way to Teresita's house, 1991, pp. 14-20).
they passed by the house of Elyboy's first cousin, Esteban, Edgar, Mario Tuquero worked as a manager of a restaurant in Paris, France,
and Emy, all surnamed So (tsn, Oct. 23, 1991, pp. 8-9). and arrived in the Philippines on March 7, 1991. Emy So, who is a
When they passed by his cousins' house, he saw his cousin Edgar registered nurse, met Mario sometime in March, 1991 and they
with Ronnie Tan and three (3) others and noticed that a drinking started living in as husband and wife in her parents' house at 1920,
spree was taking place in front of the house (tsn, Oct. 23, 1991, pp. Araullo Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, also in the same month until June,
9-10). 1991. However, Mario was legally married to a certain Evelyn
Upon seeing Elyboy, Edgar greeted him by saying: "Bingbong Tuquero and this fact was not known to Emy (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, pp.
Crisologo is coming (tsn, Oct. 23, 1991, p. 10). He then invited 37-39, 42-43, 54-55).
Elyboy to have a drink and requested that his lady companion be The group, consisting of Esteban, Edgar, Elyboy, Ronnie, Mario and
introduced to them (tsn, Oct. 23, 1991, p. 11). Elyboy answered: "I Emy resumed their drinking spree. However, after the group
cannot introduce her to you because she is mine." (tsn, Oct. 23, consumed four (4) cases of beer and before 3:00 a.m., Emy felt
1991, p. 12). sleepy and went inside (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, p. 52; Oct. 23, 1991, p.
Elyboy then proceeded to bring Teresita directly to her house (tsn, 21).
Oct. 23, 1991, p. 12). While Emy was sleeping inside the house, she was awakened by the
Immediately after bringing Teresita to her house, Elyboy passed by noise coming from the group outside their house (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991,
his cousins' house to honor their invitation (tsn, Oct. 23, 1991, p. 12). p. 59).
After an exchange of pleasantries, Edgar offered Elyboy a bottle of It turned out that Elyboy had a misunderstanding and altercation with
beer which the latter declined because it was already past 10:00 p.m. somebody and he was shouting loudly, disturbing the neighbors in
and he was on his way home already. Edgar convinced him to drink the process (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, pp. 59, 63).
just a little and to stay awhile so he could also meet his future
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 4

After pacifying the protagonists, Mario advised Elyboy to go home Sept. 9, 1991, pp. 6, 13; Nov. 12, 1991,
because his loud voice was disturbing the neighbors (tsn, Sept. 4, p. 3).
1991, Elyboy was then brought by the policemen to Precinct No. 8 of the
pp. 62-63). Western Police District and the fan knife used was surrendered by
After he was pacified and advised to go home, Elyboy ran towards Barangay Chairman Aida de los Santos to the police authorities (tsn.,
home (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, pp. 62-63). Sept. 9, 1991, pp. 7, 25).
At around 4:00 a.m. of June 3, 1991 Mario and Emy decided to leave As a result of the stabbing incident, Mario suffered several stab
for Fairview Subdivision, Quezon City, in order to get papers of a wounds numbering eighteen (18) on the different parts of his body
vehicle owned by Mario that they will bring out of the Bureau of with at least four (4) fatal wounds causing his death (tsn., Sept. 4,
Customs (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, pp. 30-31, 60). 1991, pp. 8-23).4
While Mario and Emy were waiting for a taxi at the corner of Appellant vehemently opposed the version of the prosecution.
Magsaysay Avenue and Pureza Street, Elyboy suddenly appeared According to him, while they were drinking and talking about France,
from behind and stabbed Mario at the back several times with an Esteban So suddenly stood up and said that the reason he was not
eleven inch fan knife with a white handle (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, pp. 30, able to work in France is because his surname was "So". Appellant
32, 67; Sept. 9, 1991, p. 25). felt aggrieved as he recalled the time when he lived with Esteban So
Emy shouted for help (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, p. 33). and his family and was driven out by them. He was told that his only
When Mario was about to run, he slid and fell to the ground lying on link to them is the surname "So". Then when Esteban So pulled a
his back. Elyboy took advantage of this circumstance and repeatedly knife and Edgar So broke bottles of beer and Mario Tuquero pulled
stabbed Mario on the front part of his body (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, p. 33). out "something" from his socks, appellant, fearing for his life, fled.
Emy pleaded to Elyboy to stop stabbing Mario but Elyboy ignored her Appellant claims that Esteban So and Mario Tuquero chased him but
and continued delivering stabbing blows at Mario (tsn, Sept. 4, 1991, were not able to catch him.5
p. 34). Appellant further narrated that when he tried to go back to his
Elyboy fled from the scene of the crime and ran to a dark alley (tsn., cousin's house and talk to them, he met Mario Tuquero and Emy So
Sept. 4, 1991, p. 34; Oct. 23, 1991, p. 40). at the corner of Pureza and Magsaysay Streets. Suddenly Mario
Emy called for a taxi that passed by and brought Mario Tuquero to Tuquero attacked him with a knife but because Tuquero's thrust was
the University of the East-Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Hospital slow, he was able to evade it. He grabbed the knife and proceeded to
(tsn., Sept. 1991, p. 34). stab Tuquero repeatedly. He ignored the pleas of Emy So but finally
Elyboy stayed in the alley for about thirty (30) minutes until the stopped when four (4) persons in a jeep passed by and shouted at
policemen arrived at the scene of the crime and shouted at him to him. He ran into a dark alley until the police came and brought him to
surrender. After a while, Elyboy went out of hiding and shouted at the the police precinct.6
policemen not to fire because he is surrendering. When Elyboy Appellant claimed self-defense and in the instant appeal assigned the
surrendered, he was blushing and uneasy and naked from the waist following errors:
up because he removed his shirt to wipe the blood on his face (tsn, I
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 5

THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED SELF- appellant who had
DEFENSE IN THE INSTANT CASE. ill-feelings against her family and bore a grudge. The defense has not
II shown such degree of partiality on the part of prosecution witness
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE Emy So as would cast doubt on her credibility and impeach her
TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT ELYBOY SO IS testimony, especially when said testimony is "not inherently
UNDESERVING OF CREDIT, IMPROBABLE AND IMPLAUSIBLE. improbable in itself".10 Emy So testified thus:
III xxx xxx xxx
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THERE COURT:
WAS TREACHERY IN THE INSTANT CASE. You mentioned of a grudge between your family and that of the
IV Accused and this referred to the surname, So. What was the trouble
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE all about?
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INSANITY ON THE PART OF WITNESS:
ACCUSED-APPELLANT ELYBOY SO. Actually, there was no grudge with respect to the family name So.
V They really have a grudge in our family, Your Honor.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED ACCUSED- COURT:
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER.7 What was that grudge all about?
We deny the appeal. WITNESS:
Appellant's second assigned error, in essence, raises the issue of Their family is a broken family and ours is intact, Your Honor. And
credibility of witnesses. Whose testimony is more believable and they live only from hand-outs from relatives and also from us, Your
reliable, prosecution witness Emy So's narration or appellant's Honor.
version? Appellant would like us to believe that Emy So's testimony COURT:
was biased in favor of her brothers and the victim who was her So, what was the grudge about? You even help them. You even
common-law-husband8 and aggravated by an alleged grudge helped the Accused. What was the grudge all about?
harbored by her family against appellant's family. WITNESS:
We give no credence to appellant's argument. Long settled in I just do not know really why they have such ill feelings towards us. I
criminal jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue is one of think it's jealousy "inggit", Your Honor.
credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the xxx xxx xxx
findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses You are not concerned with Elyboy he being not a resident in your
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying community?
during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of WITNESS:
substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the No, ma'am.
case.9 In the instant case, although Emy So readily admitted that her ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
relationship with appellant was "not close", she explained that it was
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 6

That is because you have grudge over this person. Referring to the Appellant's strategy to discredit Emy So on ground of bias and
Accused, is that correct? interest to exculpate himself from criminal liability cannot succeed.
WITNESS: Appellant maintains that he stabbed the victim in legitimate self-
No, ma'am, we are not so close that's why. defense and invokes in his favor the constitutional presumption of
xxx xxx xxx innocence claiming that, despite his plea of self-defense, the
COURT: prosecution retains the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable
Another question. Is it your habit not to be concerned with the welfare doubt.14 This argument deserves no credit in light of the established
of your relatives? and time-honored rule that when self-defense is invoked, the burden
WITNESS: of evidence shifts to the appellant to show that the killing was justified
I have concern to my other relatives, Your Honor. and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. He must rely on the
COURT: strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
How about the Accused, you are not concerned with him? prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not
WITNESS: be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the
No, Your Honor. killing. He must prove the essential requisites of self-defense, to wit:
COURT: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (b) reasonable
Why, because of the fact between your family and their family? necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression, and (c)
WITNESS: lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.15
It could be said that way, Your Honor, because since then, he is a In People v. Jotoy,16 we stated:
problem child that's why my feelings towards him is not so intimate It is oft-repeated that in criminal cases, the burden rests on the
anymore.11 prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused by proof beyond
The fact alone that the victim was Emy So's live-in partner does not reasonable doubt. However, when the accused invokes self-defense,
impair her testimony. The Court has time and again ruled that mere the onus probandi is shifted and he is duty bound to prove the
relationship of the witness to the victim does not automatically impair elements of the plea by clear and convincing evidence otherwise,
his credibility and render the testimony less worthy of faith and conviction is inescapable.
credit.12 In People v. Estrellanes, Jr. and Manolo,13 we put it thus: We shall now proceed to determine whether or not appellant has
. . . It is settled that the relationship of the key witness to the victim completely and satisfactorily proven the elements of self-defense.
does not necessarily disqualify him for being biased and interested. A The initial and crucial point of inquiry is whether there was unlawful
son or a wife is not incompetent to testify simply because of his or aggression on the part of the victim for absent this essential element,
her relationship to the victim. In other words, the relationship of the no claim of self-defense can be successfully interposed. If there is no
witnesses to the victim does not per se affect their credibility. Their unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or to repel and the
testimony must be evaluated and assessed according to its own second requisite of self-defense would have no basis.17
merit and if not otherwise offset by more credible evidence on record Appellant's claim that the victim, Mario Tuquero, attacked him with a
or any other revealed intrinsic defect should be given credit. knife fails to convince us. The record reveals glaring and serious
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 7

inconsistencies in appellant's testimony that makes it totally unworthy After appellant successfully wrested the knife from Tuquero, the
of credence. unlawful aggression had ceased. After the unlawful aggression has
Appellant testified that he was able to wrest the knife from Tuquero ceased, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even
because the latter's thrust was slow. However, this contradicts his wound the former aggressor.20
statement during the same cross-examination, that the incident As correctly pointed out by the trial court:
happened so fast and that Tuquero's attack was sudden. . . . More, there is no evidence in the record that, after the Accused
xxx xxx xxx wrested the knife from Mario Tuquero, the latter still did any overt act
FISCAL PERALTA: to indicate that he still tried to grab or wrest back the knife from the
And the first time that you saw Mario near the corner of Magsaysay Accused or, in any manner, persist in inflicting any harm on the
and Pureza, how far were you in relation to him the first time that you Accused. On the contrary, after the Accused wrested the knife from
saw him? Mario Tuquero, the Accused repeatedly stabbed Mario Tuquero in
WITNESS: the front portions of his body even after Mario Tuquero embraced the
I think about 1 and 1/2 armslength, sir, because I was on the other Accused to hang on for dear life. At the time the Accused stabbed
side and Mario was also on the other side and we exactly met at the Mario Tuquero, the latter's initial unlawful aggression had already
corner, sir. ceased and that there was, therefore, no more need for the Accused
FISCAL PERALTA: to still stab Mario Tuquero and stab him with impunity. . .21
And the first time that you saw him bringing out something from his We reiterated the same rule in People v. Gomez:22
waistline, what did you do? But even if We assume that it was the deceased who attacked the
WITNESS: accused with a knife, as the latter would make Us believe, We still
The incident happened so fast, sir. After pulling out something from hold that there was no self-defense because at that point when
his waistline, immediately thereafter, he made a thrust on me but I accused was able to catch and twist the hand of the deceased, in
was able to grab the knife from him sir. (Emphasis ours.)18 effect immobilizing him, the unlawful aggression had already ended.
Further, we share the incredulity of the trial court that the victim Thus, the danger having ceased, there was no more need for the
stabbed appellant in slow motion: accused to start stabbing the deceased, not just once but five (5)
Even the testimony of the Accused denigrated his claim that he acted times.
in self-defense. For, when he testified before the Court, the Accused and in People v. Gomez:23
claimed that Mario Tuquero stabbed him but that Mario Tuquero There was no self-defense where the accused was able to obtain
failed to hit the accused because Mario Tuquero stabbed the possession of the weapon from the deceased and there was no
accused slowly and the Accused was able to evade the thrust and necessity to stab the latter for aggression had already ceased.
that the latter, thereupon, wrested the knife from Mario Tuquero. It is Appellant's claim of self-defense is, likewise, contradicted and
sheer lunacy for the Accused to asseverate that Mario Tuquero negated by the physical evidence on record. The victim sustained
stabbed the Accused in slow motion . . .19 eighteen (18) stab wounds on different parts of his body. Of the
Even if we allow appellant's contention that Tuquero was the initial eighteen (18), four (4) were fatal stab wounds.24 The presence of a
unlawful aggressor, we still cannot sustain his plea of self-defense. large number of wounds on the part of the victim, their nature and
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 8

location disprove self-defense and instead indicate a determined Not content with a self-defense plea the defense likewise seeks to
effort to kill the victim.25 exempt appellant from criminal liability by claiming that appellant was
We quote with favor the observations of the trial court in this regard: insane at the time he stabbed the victim.
In this case, the evidence in the record buttresses the testimony of The claim is unmeritorious.
Emy So, on the one hand, and belied and deprecated the testimony The law presumes every man to be sane. A person accused of a
of the Accused on the other. As can be gleaned from the Necropsy crime who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity has the
Report of Dr. Florante Baltazar, (Exhibits "B" and "C"), the deceased burden of proving it.28
sustained no less than eighteen (18) stab wounds. Four (4) of the In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting circumstance,
stab wounds sustained by the deceased were on the posterior there must be complete depreciation of intelligence in the
aspects of his body, namely, stab wounds No. 4 (Exhibit "C-4"), stab commission of the act or that the accused acted without the least
wound No. 13 (Exhibit "B-13"), stab wound No. 15 (Exhibit "C-15") discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not
and stab wound No. 18 (Exhibit "C-18") and the rest of the stab exclude imputability.29
wounds sustained by the victim were on the anterior portions of his The testimony of Dr. Omer Galvez, Chief of the Child & Adolescent
body. These jibe with the testimony of Emy So that the Accused Service of the National Center For Mental Health (NCMH) and
suddenly darted from behind Mario Tuquero and stabbed him on the attending physician of appellant when he was confined at the
posterior aspects of his body and, when Mario Tuquero slipped National Center for Mental Health from June 8, 1985 to December 2,
because his shoe slid, and fell on the ground, face up, the Accused 1985, only established the previous confinement of appellant at the
then stabbed Mario Tuquero anew successively on the anterior NCMH and that appellant showed signs of psychosis or insanity at
aspects of his body. the time. The rest of his testimony consisted merely of assumptions,
On the other hand, if the Accused acted merely on self-defense, it is possibilities and generalities:
incomprehensible that he would stab Mario Tuquero no less than xxx xxx xxx
eighteen (18) times (Exhibits "B" and "C"), not only on the anterior ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
but also on the posterior aspects of his body.26 Why did you attend to this Elyboy So?
Considering the number and nature of the wounds inflicted by WITNESS:
appellant on the victim, the testimony of the prosecution witness Emy He was admitted June 8, 1985 to the service of the Child and
So that appellant unexpectedly and suddenly attacked the victim Adolescents Service, ma'am.
from behind and the fact that appellant suffered not a single injury, ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
we agree with the trial court that the killing was attended by Why?
treachery. This clearly illustrates that appellant, in the commission of WITNESS:
the crime, employed means, methods and form in its execution which He showed signs of psychosis or insanity, ma'am.
tended directly, and especially to ensure its execution without risk to xxx xxx xxx
himself arising from the defense which the victim might make.27 ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
What are the characteristics of this kind of illness Mr. Witness?
WITNESS:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 9

Even this illness it is assumed that this patient will have episodes of If they were told about a behavior that they are showing that is
insanity for the rest of his life especially if he will not unacceptable, they will react to that in a disproportionate way,
take the medicines that will prevent the episodes of insanity. ma'am.
(Emphasis ours.) ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
ATTY. DELOS SANTOS: What do you mean by disproportionate way?
And you said that this patient per your record was discharged on WITNESS:
December 3, 1985. Do we understand that from the time of his It will not be proportionate that the amount of stimulus meaning, to
discharge, he was already healed or recovered from that kind of say that they will overreact.
insanity? ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
WITNESS: Is violence a kind of over reaction to a given stimulus?
I can only say that at the time of the last check up he was doing well WITNESS:
three (3) months after that, he was discharged because he failed to Patients who are suffering from this condition has more proclivity to
come back for his check-up, ma'am. (Emphasis ours.) violence than the general population.
ATTY. DELOS SANTOS: xxx xxx xxx
You mentioned that this will be for the rest of his life. COURT:
WITNESS: Doctor, you told that he was discharged. Was he told to come back
For many patients, it is like that. It is very exceptional that they will be for further treatment?
able to recover or completely cured from it, ma'am. (Emphasis ours.) WITNESS:
ATTY. DELOS SANTOS: Yes, Your Honor, that is standard that we tell to everybody.
When you say for the rest of his life, do we understand that this will (Emphasis ours.)
be recurrent? COURT:
WITNESS: And how often is he supposed to come back for treatment in the case
Yes, ma'am. of the Accused Elyboy So?
ATTY. DELOS SANTOS: WITNESS:
What are the causes that will trigger the recurrency of this kind of After six (6) months he failed to come. He was supposed to come
illness? every month after his passe which was given on August 1, 1985,
WITNESS: Your Honor.30
Generally, the main characteristic of this patients who are suffering xxx xxx xxx
from this illness is, they are very sensitive to any kind of social Further and more importantly, the testimony of Dr. Galvez is bereft of
censures and criticisms. any evidence that appellant was completely deprived of intelligence
ATTY. DELOS SANTOS: or discernment at the time or at the very instant when he stabbed the
Could you enlighten what do you mean by social censures? victim.
WITNESS: Well-settled is the rule that an inquiry into the mental state of
appellant should relate to the period immediately before or at the
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 10

very moment the act was committed.31 In the present case, the FISCAL PERALTA:
testimony of Dr. Galvez refers to appellant's treatment six (6) years And do you think doctor that could have been the reason why he
before the incident happened. already failed to report on a monthly basis considering that he was
Moreover, Dr. Galvez admitted that after appellant's last check-up already in college and actually finished his college degree?
sometime in 1985, or six (6) years before the crime was committed, ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
he was doing well and relieved from psychosis: That might be misleading, Your Honor, considering that the testimony
xxx xxx xxx of the doctor, he said that he should report six (6) months after the
COURT: discharge but he took his college degree for several years thereafter.
When he came back, after his discharge, was he given medication? COURT:
WITNESS: The only point of the fiscal is that, is that an indication of having been
Yes, Your Honor. cured. If he was able to take and finish even college. Go ahead.
COURT: WITNESS:
How did you find his behavior when he came back for medication? It would look that during that period, he would have been cured and
WITNESS: there are some also who although that they may not be entirely cured
As per record, he was doing well, Your Honor. (Emphasis ours.) would be able to get a degree, make the standards of education and
COURT: there are some who could also get the standard of employment
When you say doing well, what exactly do you mean by that? despite their craziness. "Medyo naitatago or nakakaya." Psychosis is
WITNESS: something in many patients it is very obvious. You could see that
He was relieved from psychosis at that time, Your Honor. (Emphasis they are really grossly disorganized "talagang sira." But there are
ours.) some who has some ability to keep it just there and maintain a
xxx xxx xxx proper social behavior and be able to achieve socially acceptable
FISCAL PERALTA: functioning in society.
If the Patient was discharged in 1985 and finished his college degree COURT:
in four (4) years, do you think that by that time he was already cured In other words, that illness is dormant.
of his sickness? WITNESS:
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
It will look like that, sir. (Emphasis ours.) COURT:
FISCAL PERALTA: And it emerges in some point of time?
What do you mean it will look like that? WITNESS:
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
It will look that while there are various types of clinical courses, COURT:
meaning, the development of an illness in a patient and if the patient So, it is possible doctor that the decease is there but at the same
was able to finish college, then the outcome of the treatment that was time, the patient is able to study?
given to him in 1985 was quite good. WITNESS:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 11

Yes, Your Honor. The possibilities are these he was cured entirely WITNESS:
cured during the period or the decease is just there and it is not Like this, sir. He was embracing me, my right hand was freed.
affecting his behavior. So there are two (2) possibilities.32 (Emphasis INTERPRETER:
ours) Witness demonstrated by stretching his right hand, swinging it from
A perusal of appellant's testimony further negates his plea of insanity. the right side to the front towards his body.
His recall of the events that transpired before, during and after the FISCAL PERALTA:
stabbing incident, as well as the nature and contents of his And how many times also did you stab the back portion of the body
testimony, does not betray an aberrant mind. His memory of the victim?
conveniently blanks out only as to the number of wounds he inflicted WITNESS:
on the victim. This, appellant attributes to insanity but we are far from I could not recall also, sir.
convinced. A man may act crazy but it does not necessarily and FISCAL PERALTA:
conclusively prove that he is legally so.33 And when you stopped stabbing the victim when you said four (4)
xxx xxx xxx men boarded a jeep and shouted "itigil na, itigil na"?
FISCAL PERALTA: WITNESS:
Afterwards, when you got hold of the knife, you repeatedly stabbed It was during the time when both of us fell down. I was on top of him
him? and I stabbed him on his chest, sir. That was when four (4) persons
WITNESS: arrived and shouted "itigil na, itigil na," and I stopped,
Yes, sir, because after I got hold of the knife, I was able to wrest it sir.34
from him. And with the use of my right hand, I repeatedly stabbed xxx xxx xxx
him. At the time his left arm was embracing me and I repeatedly ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
stabbed him with my right hand from the left swinging it to the right in And what did you do when you were not hit?
front, hitting him on the front of his body, sir. WITNESS:
FISCAL PERALTA: By the time I evaded his thrust I was able to get hold of his palm,
How many times did you stab him on the front portion? ma'am.
WITNESS: ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
I don't know, sir, because I was out of myself. And when you were able to get hold of his palm, what happened?
FISCAL PERALTA: WITNESS:
After repeatedly stabbing the front portion of his body, you said that Because I was so made of what he did, when I was able to grab and
you also stabbed him at the back? get hold of the knife, I hit him, ma'am.
WITNESS: INTERPRETER:
When he was already embracing me, sir, my right hand was freed Witness demonstrating by raising his right hand upward on the level
and that was the time when I stabbed him at the back. of his breast swinging his right hand towards the right.35
FISCAL PERALTA: xxx xxx xxx
And how did you stab him at the back? In People v. Renegado,36 we held thus:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 12

By his testimony appellant wants to convey that for one brief moment totally deprive him of intelligence. The presence of his reasoning
he was unaware or unconscious of what he was doing, that he faculties, which enabled him to exercise sound judgment and
"regained his senses" when he heard the voice of Mrs. Tan telling satisfactorily articulate the aforesaid matters, sufficiently discounts
him: "Loreto, don't do that," and only then did he realize that he had any intimation of insanity of appellant when he committed the
wounded Lira. That, to Us, is incredible. For it is most unusual for dastardly felonies. The annals of crime are replete with documented
appellant's mind which was in a perfect normal state on Monday records, and we are not without our share in this jurisdiction, where
morning, August 29, to suddenly turn blank at that particular moment mental illness has been feigned and invoked to provide a defense for
when he stabbed Lira. Appellant himself testified that he was acting the accused in a criminal prosecution. (Emphasis ours.)
very sanely that Monday morning, as shown by the fact that he went In the present case, the defense has failed to adduce sufficient
to the canteen in a jovial mood "singing, whistling, and tossing a coin evidence to overthrow the presumption of sanity. The State, thus,
in his hand"; he saw the persons inside the canteen namely, Venecia continues, its guard against sane murderers who seek to escape
Icayan, Lolita Francisco, Benita Tan, Felipe Tingzon and a guest of punishment through a general plea of insanity.38
the latter (all of whom, except the last one, testified for the WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed decision
prosecution); he noticed the arrival of Lira who banged his folders on is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against appellant.
the table, elbowed him, and said in a loud voice: "ano ka", he saw
SO ORDERED.
Lira put his right hand inside his pocket and with the other hand push
a chair towards him; he became "confused" because he remembered E. 2. Discuss People v. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, 29
that Lira threatened to kill him if he would see him again; at this point November 1950
he "lost his senses" and regained it when he heard the voice of Mrs. PEOPLE V FORMIGONES (1)
Tan saying: "Loreto, don't do that", and he then found out that he had FACTS:
wounded Lira. If appellant was able to recall all those incidents, We Facts: In the month of Nov. 1946, Abelardo was living on his farm in
cannot understand why his memory stood still at that very crucial Camarines Sur w/ his wife, Julia Agricola & their 5 children. From
moment when he stabbed Lira to return at the snap of a finger as it there they transferred in the house of his half-brother, Zacarias
were after he accomplished the act of stabbing his victim . . . Formigones in the same municipality to find employment as
(Emphasis ours.) harvesters of palay. After a month, Julia was sitting at the head of the
and in the later case of People v. Aquino,37 we ruled: stairs of the house when Abelardo, w/o previous quarrel or
The clinical case report also shows that appellant, when interviewed provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house &
upon his admission to the mental institution, recalled having taken stabbed his wife Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating the right
120 cubic centimeters of cough syrup and consumed about 3 sticks lung & causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death. Abelardo
of marijuana before the commission of the crime. This admission then took his dead wife & laid her on the floor of the living room &
substantially affirms his prior extrajudicial confession that he was then lay down beside her. In this position, he was found by the
under the influence of marijuana when he sexually abused the victim people who came in response to the shouts made by his eldest
and, on the occasion there of killed her. It is, therefore, beyond cavil daughter, Irene Formigones.
that assuming appellant had some form of mental illness, it did not
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 13

The motive was admittedly that of jealousy because according to his said written statements, thus saving the government all the trouble &
statement, he used to have quarrels with his wife for reason that he expense of catching him & securing his conviction.
often saw her in the company of his brother, Zacarias; that he But 2 mitigating circumstances are present: passion or obfuscation
suspected the 2 were maintaining illicit relations because he noticed (having killed his wife in a jealous rage) & feeblemindedness.
that his wife had become indifferent to him. During the preliminary Judgment: In conclusion, appellant is found guilty of parricide & the
investigation, the accused pleaded guilty. At the case in the CFI, he lower court’s judgment is hereby affirmed w/ the modification that
also pleaded guilty but didn’t testify. His counsel presented the appellant will be credited with half of any preventive imprisonment he
testimony of 2 guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was has undergone (because of the 2 mitigating circumstances
confined to the effect that his conduct was rather strange & that he
behaved like an insane person, at times he would remain silent, walk PEOPLE V FORMIGONES (2)
around stark naked, refuse to take a bath & wash his clothes etc… ISSUE: Formigones is an imbecile and therefore exempted from
The appeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is an criminal liability under Article 12 of the RPC. Appeal from judgement
IMBECILE & therefore exempt from criminal liability under RPC A12. of the Court of First Instance. (Alberto is guilty of parricide)
Issue: WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of RULING
the crime, thus exempted from criminal liability Appellant (Formigones) guilty of parricide and SC affirms the
Held: No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr. Francisco Gomes, judgement of lower court with the modification that Formigones will
although he was feebleminded, he is not an imbecile as he could still be credited with one-half of any preventive imprisonment he has
distinguish between right & wrong & even feel remorse. In order that undergone
a person could be regarded as an imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC reduced penalty from reclusion perpetua to death. Appellant will
A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be deprived pay cost.
completely of reason or discernment & freedom of will at the time of FACTS
committing the crime. (Note that definition is same as insanity) -Nov. 1946, Alberto Formigones (appellant) with his wife, Julia
As to the strange behavior of the accused during his confinement, Agricola, and five children moved to live in the house of this half-
assuming it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed brother, Zacarias Formigones.
either to his being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental -Formigones moves his family to Sipocot, to find employment as
condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. A man who harvester of palay
could feel the pangs of jealousy & take violent measures to the extent .-Dec. 28, 1946, late afternoon, took his bolo and stabbed his wife
of killing his wife who he suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the Julia in the back – wife died.
belief that in doing so, he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be -The wife fell in the stairs where she was sitting before she was
regarded as an imbecile. WON the suspicions were justified, is of stabbed.
little or no importance. The fact is that he believed her faithless. - Alberto Fomigones carried his wife up the house and laid her on
Furthermore, in his written statement, he readily admitted that he the living room floor and lay down beside her. (This is how people
killed his wife, & at the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate found them)
-Irene Formigones, witness the stabbing and shouted for help.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 14

-Alberto signed a written statement wherein he admitted of killing his -Strange behavior of Alberto is attributed to him being feebleminded
wife (during constabulary investigation). or his remorse for having killed his wife.
-Alberto’s motive for killing his wife was due to jealousy. Alberto -A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy and take
suspected his wife and brother (Zacarias) are having an affair. violent measures of killing his wife, whom her suspected of being
-Zacarias was living in he’s grandmother but he frequently visits unfaithful, could hardly be regarded as an imbecile.
Alberto and his family. Zacarias would also spend the night there. -However, the court sympathizes Alberto for being feebleminded
This aroused the suspicions of Alberto. (lack of mental powers).
-Preliminary investigation conducted by justice of peace of Sipocot, -Paragraph 2, rule 3 of Article 63 of RPC provides that when the
Alberto pleaded guilty. commission to act is attended by some mitigating circumstances, the
-Trial case in the court of first instance, Alberto entered a plea of not lesser penalty shall be applied.
guilty.
O Counsel of Alberto presented a testimony of two jail guard that Mitigating circumstances
Alberto behavedlike an insane person O The fact that Alberto is feebleminded warrants the finding in his
-he removes his clothes and goes naked in the prison; sometimes he favor of the mitigating circumstances provided in either paragraph
would remain silent and indifferent in his surroundings; he 8 or 9 of article 13 of RPC.
refuses to take a bath and wash his clothes until forced by -“suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
the guards; he would sing with his fellow prisoners or alone. action, defense
or communication with his fellow being,” or such illness “as would
O Dr. Francisco Gomez, examined Alberto and in his opinion, Alberto diminish the exercise of his will power”
is suffering from feeblemindedness and is not an imbecile and that
he knows what is right and wrong. o additional mitigating circumstance, paragraph 6 or article 13
O Trial court rejected that Alberto is an imbecile and is excepted from –“that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
criminal liability under Article 12 of the RPC. produced passion or obfuscation.
O Trial court’s ruling the same as the lower court. -Alberto killed his wife due to jealousy.
-Article 12 of RPC
-to be excepted from criminal liability, Alberto must be deprived F. EXPLAIN PAR. 2 OF ARTICLE 12 IN RELATION TO SEC. 6 OF
completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will when he RA 9344.
committed the crime. Imbecility or insanity at the time of the The phrase “under nine years” should be construed “nine
commission of act should be absolutely deprived as a person of years or less;” as may be inferred from the next subsequent
intelligence or freedom of will. Mere abnormality of his mental paragraph which does not totally exempt a person “over nine
faculties is not excepted. years of age” if he acted with discernment.
-Deaf-mute does not equal to imbecility or insanity.
-Allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proven.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 15

RA 9344, otherwise known as “Juvenile and Welfare Act of The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
2006,” raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from nine to 15 include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
years of age. accordance with existing laws.”
Under Section 6 of the said law, a child 15 years of age or
under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subject years of age who acted without discernment exempt from
to an intervention program as provided under Section 20 of the criminal liability
same law.
A minor under 18 but above 15 must have acted with discernment to
The exempting circumstance of minority is based also on the
incur criminal liability. The minor is presumed to have acted without
complete absence of intelligence.
discernment since the phrase “unless he/she acted with discernment”
indicates an exception to the general rule that a minor under 18 but
G. EXPLAIN PAR. 3. OF ARTICLE 12 IN RELATION TO SEC. 6
above 15 has acted without discernment.
OF RA 9344.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor
Paragraph 3, Article 12 of the RPC is deemed repealed by the
who is over 15 but under 18 years of age has acted with
provision of RA No. 9344 declaring a child 15 years of age or under
discernment, in order for the minor not to be entitled tho this
exempt from criminal liability. The law provides thus:
exempting circumstances.
“SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen
Life of human being is divided into 4 periods
(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child 1. The age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and below
shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 (infancy).
of this Act.
2. The age of conditional responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the years.
fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
3. The age of full responsibility – 18 years or over (adolescence) to
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age 70 (maturity).
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
4. The age of mitigated responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in
years, the offender acting with discernment; over 70 years of age.
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act. A child in conflict with law
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 16

A person who at the time of the commission of the offense is below xxxx
18 years old but not less than 15 years and one day old.
Applying Declarador v. Gubaton,[153] which was
Meaning of discernment promulgated on 18 August 2006, the Court of Appeals held that,
consistent with Article 192 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as
The capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense
amended,[154] the aforestated provision does not apply to one who
to understand the differences between right and wrong and the
has been convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
consequences of the wrongful act.
perpetua or life imprisonment.[155]
Determination of discernment
Meanwhile, on 10 September 2009, this Court promulgated the
Shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral decision in Sarcia,[156] overturning the ruling in Gubaton. Thus:
and psychological components of criminal responsibility and
The xxx provision makes no distinction as to the nature of the
consequences of the moral act; whether a child can be held
offense committed by the child in conflict with the law, unlike P.D.
responsible for essentially antisocial behavior.
No. 603 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. The said P.D. and Supreme Court
Basis of paragraph 3 – complete absence of intelligence. (SC) Rule provide that the benefit of suspended sentence would not
apply to a child in conflict with the law if, among others, he/she has
h. Read and explain Secs. 38 and 40 of RA 9344.
been convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child or life imprisonment. In construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the
who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the Court is guided by the basic principle of statutory construction that
commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the when the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since
court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been
resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of convicted of a capital offense and another who has been convicted of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the a lesser offense, the Court should also not distinguish and should
child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in conflict with
need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence the law who has been found guilty of a heinous crime.[157]
shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years
The legislative intent reflected in the Senate deliberations[158] on
(18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her
Senate Bill No. 1402 (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
guilt. Act of 2005) further strengthened the new position of this Court to
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various cover heinous crimes in the application of the provision on the
chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate automatic suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law.
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on The pertinent portion of the deliberation reads:
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 17

conflict with the law at the time of the promulgation of the judgment
of conviction is not material. What matters is that the offender
If a mature minor, maybe 16 years old to below 18 years old
committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age.
is charged, accused with, or may have committed a serious offense,
and may have acted with discernment, then the child could be Thus, appellant may be confined in an agricultural camp or any other
recommended by the Department of Social Welfare and Development training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of Republic Act No.
(DSWD), by the Local Council for the Protection of Children (LCPC), 9344.[164]
or by [Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s] proposed Office of
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to
Juvenile Welfare and Restoration to go through a judicial proceeding;
Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition
but the welfare, best interests, and restoration of the child should
measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not
still be a primordial or primary consideration. Even in heinous
been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed
crimes, the intention should still be the child’s restoration,
to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
rehabilitation and reintegration. xxx (Italics supplied in Sarcia.)[159]
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the
On 24 November 2009, the Court En Banc promulgated the Revised court for execution of judgment.
Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law, which reflected the same
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years
position.[160]
of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
These developments notwithstanding, we find that the benefits of a whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order
suspended sentence can no longer apply to appellant. The execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age
law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.[161] of twenty-one (21) years.
Section 40[162] of the law and Section 48[163] of the Rule are clear
I. DISCUSS, STATE THE ELEMENTS OF, AND EXPLAIN EACH
on the matter. Unfortunately, appellant is now twenty-five (25)
OF THE REMAINING FOUR EXEMPTING
years old.
circumstances.
Be that as it may, to give meaning to the legislative intent of the Act,
the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
(21) years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was intention of causing it.
still a child. The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration,
Elements:
rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Act in order
that he/she is given the chance to live a normal life and become a 1. A person is performing a lawful act;
productive member of the community. The age of the child in
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 18

2. With due care; 1. That an act is required by law to be done;

3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; 2. That a person fails to perform such act;

4. Without fault or intention of causing it. 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause.
Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible
force. J. EXPLAIN PAR. 4 OF ARTICLE 12.

Elements: Discussion:

1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force. 1. Act must be lawful, therefore when a person acting in self-defense
discharges a firearm in a thickly populated place in the city of Manila
2. That the physical force must be irresistible.
being prohibited and penalized by Article 155 of RPC, he cannot
3. That the physical force must come from a third person. invoke the exempting circumstance in par. 4.

Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable 2. A person must not be guilty of negligence.
fear of an equal or greater injury.

Elements:

1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or
at least equal to, that which he is required to commit;

2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the


ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

For the exempting circumstance of an uncontrollable fear to be


invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (a)
existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be real and
imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least
equal to that committed.

Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,


when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.

Elements:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 19

3. Accidents – something that happens outside the sway of our will, Facts:
and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
That on or about the 26th day of January of this year, the accused,
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
with the intention of killing Feliciano Sanchez, invited him to hunt
If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the wild chickens, and, upon reaching the forest, with premeditation shot
performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without him in the breast with a shotgun which destroyed the heart and killed
intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. him. After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo ran back to his
workers and asked one,"Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the
Basis of par. 4 – lack of negligence and intent. Under this
body, which they did by putting it amidst the tallcogon grass, and
circumstance, a person does not commit either an intentional felony
later burying in an old well. Only one shot was heard that morning
or a culpable felony.
and a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were
j.1. Discuss U.S. v. Tañedo, G.R. No. L-5418, 12 February found at the scene of the crime prior to the trial, the accused denied
1910. all knowledge of the crime, but later confessed during the trial. The
CFI of Tarlac found the accused guilty of homicide, having invited
(1)
the deceased into the forest and intentionally shooting him in the
PETITIONER: U.S chest So far as can be ascertained, there was no enmity and no
unpleasant relations between them. There appears to have been no
RESPONDENT: CECILIO TAÑEDO motive whatever for the commission of the crime. The only possible
reason that the accused could have for killing the deceased would be
found in the fact of a sudden quarrel
W/N the entrapment YES between them during the hunt. That
operation conducted by the 1. Prior surveillance is not a idea is wholly negative by the fact that
police was valid, considering condition for an entrapment the chicken and the man were shot at
that there was no prior operation’s validity the same time, there having been only
surveillance and the police 2. Flexibility is a trait of good one shot fired. Hence, the decision was
did not know the subject of police work. However the
appealed
the operation police carry out its entrapment
operations, for as long as the Issue:
rights of the accused have not
been violated in the process, Whether or not the court is correct in
the courts will not pass on the ruling that there is criminal liability
wisdom thereof. The police Held:
officers may decide that time is
of the essence and dispense
with the need for prior
surveillance.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 20

NO, If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in the members to act and his mind to obey. Such a force can never consist
performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without in anything which springs primarily from the man himself; it must be
intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. a force which acts upon him from the outside and by a third person.

In the case where there is no evidence of negligence upon the part The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or
of the accused. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous force coming from a
the commission of a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is third person.
there any evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the
Basis – complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.
death of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious
upon the part of the defendant are his concealment and denial. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like
one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is
greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not
not required to prove such a defense by a preponderance of the
act with freedom.
evidence, because there is a denial of intentional killing. The burden
is upon the State to show that it was intentional. K.1. DISCUSS PEOPLE V. LORENZO, G.R. NO. L54414, 09
JULY 1984
Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a
prosecution for homicide, which must be submitted to the jury, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
since a plea of misadventure is a denial of criminal intent which
constitutes an essential element in criminal homicide, to warrant a vs.
conviction it must be negative by the prosecution beyond a EUSTAQUIO LORENO y MALAGA and JIMMY MARANTAL y LONDETE,
reasonable doubt. accused-appellants.
Judgment is reversed. G.R. No. L-54414 July 9, 1984
K. EXPLAIN PAR. 5 OF ARTICLE 12. Facts: Barangay Captain Elias Monge, his family & Francisco Fabie,
their farm helper were home preparing for the barrio dance when
This exempting circumstance presupposes that a person is compelled
by means of force or violence to commit a crime. Loreno & a man in a dark sweater came by their house, saying there
was a letter from the chief (hepe). Elias let them in & when they
Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must read the letter, it said that they were NPA. They were made to lie on
produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all the ground while other men went in the house. The alleged NPA
resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, members robbed the family of several belongings. Moreover, the
incapable of committing a crime. It must be such that, in spite of the man in the dark sweater raped the 2 daughters of Elias, Cristina &
resistance of the person on whom it operates, it compels his
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 21

Monica. Elias, Cristina, Monica & Fabie positively identified Loreno as being raped. Furthermore, Loreno brought Beata, Elias’s wife to the
1 of the robbers. Fabie also identified Marantal. different rooms to open the trunks and closets, without the threat
and assistance of the man in dark sweater. And lastly, Loreno tried to
Issue: WON Loreno and Marantal are exempted from criminal liability
molest Cristina after being raped by the man in dark sweater.
under the defenses of Article 12(5) and (6)
When Marantal kicked Fabie when the latter saw his face, it was due
Held: No. Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal claimed
to the fact the Fabie had recognized him & the blows which he gave
that they acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or
to Fabie who was still tied was a warning not to report his presence
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury.
& participation in the crime. Furthermore, there was no showing that
They admitted that they were in the house of Elias that night but
Jimmy Marantal raised a voice of protest nor did an act to prevent
they were only forced by a man wearing black sweater and his five
the commission of the crimes. All these demonstrated the voluntary
companions who claimed to be members of the NPA, with the threat
participation & the conspiracy of the appellants. Not only was their
that if they did not obey, appellants and their families would be
defense untenable, but the facts show that that there was
killed. This was found untenable.
conspiracy.
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like
L. EXPLAIN PAR. 6 OF ARTICLE 12.
one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not This exempting circumstance presupposes that a person is compelled
act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of
mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. intimidation or threat, not force or violence.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent
For the exempting circumstance of an uncontrollable fear to be
and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded
invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (a)
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A
existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be real and
threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least
such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
equal to that committed.
or self-defense in equal combat.
The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense –
Loreno and Marantal had admitted their participation in the
a threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
commission of the crimes of robbery and rape against Elias and is
such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
family. Facts inconsistent with the appellants’ defense were
or self-defense in equal combat.
established: (a) having been armed with a firearm, (b) Loreno
positioning himself near the post of the balcony without prior Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear –In
instructions, (c) Loreno furnishing the rattan to tie the victims, and irresistible force, the offender uses violence or physical force to
(d) Loreno pointing his gun to the other victims when Monica was compel another person to commit a crime; in uncontrollable fear, the
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 22

offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to On or about 6 o'clock in the evening of June 12, 1952, Felix,
commit a crime. Semañada, then 19 years of age, and in company of 2 Huks, i.e.,
Commanders Wennie and Heling, all armed, arrived at the house of
Basis – Complete absence of freedom. “Actus me invite factus non
the spouses Serapio Villate and Nieves Magtibay, situated at barrio
est meus actus.” (“An act done by me against my will is not my act."
Sastre, Gumaca, Quezon, where they had a store. The couple were
L.1. DISCUSS PEOPLE V. SEMAÑADA, G.R. NO. L-11361, 26 taking their supper when Felix Semañada ordered Serapio Villate to
MAY 1958. go down and, apparently because the latter resisted the order, he
was brought down to a distance of about an arm's length from his
G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958
house. Once there he was seized and hogtied by Commanders
Wennie and Heling with a string used for fishing. As his companions
held the victim Semañada stabbed Villate several times with a sharp
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, pointed bolo measuring about a palm's length (dangkal). The torture
vs. lasted for about 30 minutes causing the victim to cry in agony "aroy,
aroy". His wife, Nieves Magtibay, who hails from the same barrio of
FELIX SEMAÑADA, alias SEMAÑADA, alias COMMANDER DANTE, Semañada, actually saw the stabbing from the opening of an upstair
defendant-appellant. a window and she ran to her husband's aid but she was not able to
help him because of the 2 Huks that were unknown to her, one of
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Frine C.
whom blocked her way while the other hit her with the butt of his
Zaballero for appellee.
gun on the upper lip, as a result of which her upper lip was cut and
Edgardo Z. Olivera for appellant. she lost 3 front teeth.

FELIX, J.: After the killing of Serapio Villate, Felix Semañada and his
companions went up the victims house. There Semañada pushed
Sometime in 1950 Felix Semañada, alias Semañada, alias
Nieves Magtibay to a corner, threatened to kill her and demanded
Commander Dante, a young boy of 17 years of age, joined the
from her the shotgun of the deceased. The three also ransacked the
Hukbalahap organization, which was composed of 4 units, namely,
couples wardrobe, after which they left with the shotgun valued at
the organization, the contacting, the liquidation and the courier
P250.00 and other merchandise and money of a total value of P900.
groups, and Semañada was assigned to form part of the latter group,
The widow also left the place to report the incident to her brother-in-
whose duty was to deliver letters and messages. Apparently, Felix
law Daniel Villate, who in turn reported the matter to the Philippine
Semañada was unhappy and discontented and oftenly scolded by his
Constabulary, and that same evening the authorities found the
parents, so he easily yielded to the propaganda of the Hukbalahap
deceased Serapio Villate lying dead, face downward and hogtied.
organization, for he did not have the opportunity to obtain any
academic schooling except up to Grade II.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 23

A post-mortem examination of the cadaver disclosed that a total of Upon arraignment the defendant pleaded not guilty but after hearing
51 wounds were inflicted on the thorax and abdomen of the the Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
deceased, 50 of which were superficial and only one fatal, for it robbery with homicide, defined and punished under Article 294,
penetrated the abdomen, with a depth of 5 inches, one inch long and paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, with the attendance of 3
one centimeter wide (Exhibit A). aggravating circumstances with none mitigating to offset the same,
and sentenced him to die in the electric chair, to indemnify the heirs
The widow, however, kept silent as to the identity of Felix Semañada
of the deceased Serapio Villate in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay
as one of the malefactors until he surrendered to the authorities in
the further sum of P900.00, value of the cash and goods robbed
Nagcarlang, Laguna, on December 5, 1955. Upon learning that said
from the deceased, with costs.
Huk was already in the custody of the law, she revealed to the
authorities that the person who stabbed her husband to death in the Defendant did not appeal from this decision but this case was
evening of June 12, 1952, was Felix Semañada and explained that nevertheless, brought to this Court under the provisions of Section 9
the reason for her long silence was her fear that while Semañada Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, for review and judgment as law and
were at large living in the mountains, she might be liquidated if he justice shall dictate.
would learn that a charge for murder was filed against him by the
In this instance counsel for the defense maintains that the lower
widow of the deceased.
Court erred:
Due to this revelation and after the corresponding investigation a
1. In holding that the accused-appellant Felix Semañada is guilty
complaint for "robbery in band with murder" was filed in the Justice
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with murder,
of the Peace Court of Gumaca, Quezon, against Felix Semañada,
although the evidence of the prosecution is wholly insufficient as it is
alias Semañada, alias Commander Dante et al., without naming the
improbable and contrary to common experience;
said 2 other commanders who were still at large unidentified. After
proper proceedings the Justice of the Peace Court, convinced that 2. In giving weight and merit to the evidence of the prosecution to
the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense the effect that widow Nieves Magtibay kept silent as to identify
imputed to him, remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of assailant until the accused surrendered to the authorities for fear that
Quezon where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding she might be liquidated also by the accused with as living in the
information this time against Felix Semañada, alias Semañada, alias mountain as a Hukbalahap;
Commander Dante alone, charging him with the crime of robbery
3. In concluding that the wounds have been inflicted one by one,
with homicide, defined and punished by Article 294 in connection
with Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic torturing the deceased for one-half hour constituting all aggravating
Act 18. circumstance of cruelty, although there is no evidence to support
said conclusion;
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 24

4. In not extending to the accused-appellant the benefit of Article 12, 20 arm-length away from the house of Serapio Villate, the 2
paragraphs 5 and 6, although the evidence shows that he acted commanders Wennie and Heling ordered him to stay guard near the
under the influence of uncontrollable fear or compulsion of an road; while thus guarding alone, he could have escaped but he did
irresistible force; not for fear that if he did so he would be liquidated by the 2
notorious commanders and, beside that, he had no reason to escape,
5. In holding the accused-appellant liable for the acts of his
as he was made to believe that they were going there only for a visit.
companions when he had neither knowledge of the intention to kill
As a matter of fact, while thus guarding the road he heard neither
the deceased nor had he actually participated in its commission; and
cries nor shouts from the house of Villate. On the other hand, he
6. In not holding and extending to the accused the mitigating hold not have gone to town because he would have been arrested by
circumstances of (1) lack of instruction; (2) for having acted under the army.
the influence of grave fear not entirely uncontrollable under
On December 5, 1955, in Nagcarlang, Laguna, upon realizing the
paragraph 1, article 13, in connection with paragraph 6 of article 12
evils of communism and having grown up to understand the beauty
of the Revised Penal Code; and (3) voluntary surrender of the
of democracy, he surrender voluntarily to Sgt. Regalado of the 26th
accused to the authorities on December 5, 1955, within paragraph
B.C.T. He said that he wanted to live peacefully and to start a new
10, of article 13 of the Revised. Penal Code.
life.
The version of the defendant as to the execution of the crime at bar
In consonance with this version defendant disclaims any criminal
is as follows:
liability for the death of Villate and the robbery in the latter's house.
He admitted having been at the scene of the crime at the time it was
being committed, but he says that it was so, because he was under
On or about June 12, 1952, at about 3 o'clock p.m., while Felix
the influence of a great fear. Consequently — counsel for the
Semañada was in barrio Labnig, Gumaca, Quezon, waiting for letters defense argues — that in so far as the defendant is concerned, the
to be delivered, Commanders Wennie and Heling of the liquidation circumstances of treachery and cruelty cannot be appreciated against
unit arrived. The 2 commanders ordered him to accompany them to
him, because the killing was not executed by him, aside from the fact
barrio Sastre, but he refused on the ground that as a courier he had
that the testimony of the widow Nieves Magtibay, who averred to
his own duty to do, but the said commanders took their firearms, have seen the defendant stabbing the deceased for 30 minutes
pointed them toward him saying that he would be killed if he refused deserves no credence because from the opening of the window thru
to guide them to the house of Serapio Villate. He was told that they
which she allegedly was peeping, she was unable to see the
were just to visit Serapio Villate without showing any intention of defendant, specially if it is considered, that her view was intercepted
killing that man. Had he not been forced to go to with them to barrio by at least 3 persons.
Sastre, he would not have gone with them. They arrived at barrio
Sastre at about 6 o'clock in the evening and when they were about
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 25

Counsel further maintains that even if convicted of the crime charged 44), although it might be under certain situations in cases of murder
defendant is entitled to the benefits of the mitigating circumstances (People vs. Taluk, et al., 65 Phil., 696) and homicide (People vs.
of (1) lack of instruction; (2) having acted under the influence of fear Hubero, 61 Phil., 64).
not entirely uncontrollable to be exempting under Article 12,
With respect to the alleged "uncontrollable fear or compulsion of an
paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, but coming within the
irresistible force", which appellant says the lower court did not
purview of Article 13 paragraph 1 of the same legal body; and (3)
consider in his favor, the Government contends that the purported
voluntary surrender to the authorities on December 5, 1955, which
uncontrollable fear was a mere fabrication and that appellant was a
also may be considered as a mitigating circumstance under Article
willing participant in the criminal design. Moreover, fear or duress in
13, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code, for it constitutes a
order to be a valid defense, should be based on real, imminent or
circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to the circumstance
reasonable fear for one's life or limb. It should not be inspired by
of voluntary surrender to a person in authority or agent covered, by
speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A person should not commit a
paragraph 7 of said article 13.
very serious crime on account of a flimsy fear (People vs. Quilloy, 88
Upon going over the evidence on record, We find no reason for the Phil., 53), and the evidence on record does not show that defendant
widow Nieves Magtibay to testify falsely against the defendant herein really acted by such uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
and to impute to him the commission of so heinous offense. She
knew very well the defendant and was able to identify him fully. Any
way, the matter devolves into a case of credibility of witnesses and Anent the circumstance of voluntary surrender or of a similar or
the trial judge, who had the opportunity of observing their demeanor analogous circumstance We hold that defendant cannot claim it in his
while testifying in his presence and is in a better position than the favor in the case at bar, because he did not surrender to the
appellate Court to gauge their credibility, has given full credence to authority or its agents by reason of the commission of the crime for
the testimony of said widow. which he is herein prosecuted, but for being a Huk who wanted to
come within the pale of the law (see People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil., 27,
As to the circumstance of lack of instruction, the Solicitor General
33-34).
states that the test for the mitigating circumstance is not illiteracy
alone, but rather lack of sufficient intelligence (People vs. Ripas, et On the strength of the foregoing considerations We find Felix
al., * G.R. No. L-6246, promulgated May 28, 1954), and the record Semañada, alias Semañada, alias Commander Dante, guilty of the
discloses that far from his claim that he suffers from lack of crime of robbery with homicide attended by the aggravating
instruction, he possesses an intelligence worthy of a lawyer circumstance of treachery (which include nocturnity and aid of
considering his ability, for one unschooled, to distinguish between superior strength), dwelling and cruelty, by deliberately and
implications and innuendos. At any rate, lack of instruction is not inhumanly increasing the sufferings of the victim. He should,
mitigating in cases of robbery (U.S. vs. Pascual, 9 Phil., 491; People therefore, be sentenced to the supreme penalty of death which,
vs. Melendrez, 59 Phil., 154; People vs. De la Cruz, et al., 77 Phil.,
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 26

however, cannot be imposed upon him for lack of the required O. WHAT IS ENTRAPMENT?
number of votes necessary for the imposition of said penalty. - Entrapment is a form of arrest where police resort to ways
and means to capture a criminal in the act of committing a crime.
Wherefore, the decision of the lower Court rendered in this case and
Its most common form is the "Buy-bust Operation." It has become
brought to Us in consultation is hereby affirmed, although the
increasingly common because of the proliferation of smuggling,
penalty imposed upon the defendant is lowered to life imprisonment
drugs and other illegal operations. There is, however, a precaution
(reclusion perpetua), in accordance with the provisions of the last
when using entrapment as a means of arrest. Its effectivity is
paragraph of Section 9 of Republic Act. 296, known as the Judiciary apparently obvious, but can give way to abuse as well. It is
Act of 1948, with the corresponding accessories of the law and the recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused
payment of the costs. It is so ordered. and partakes the nature of a confession by avoidance. It's a
positive defense.
- Entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order
M. EXPLAIN PAR. 7 OF ARTICLE 12. to trap or capture a lawbreaker
Basis:
The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Article 12 exempts the P. WHAT IS INSTIGATION?
accused from criminal liability because he acts without intent, thee - Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he,
third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him
In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of
- Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an
the crime
offense originated from the inducer and not the accused who had
It presupposes the exercise of free and the use of
no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it
intelligence. Hence in Paragraphs 1,2 and 3 of Article 12, the
were it not for the initiatives by the inducer.
imbecile, insane or minor, not having intelligence, does not act with
Q. DISTINGUISH INSTIGATION FROM ENTRAPMENT?
intent. The person acting under any of the circumstances mentioned
REYES:
in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 12, not having freedom of action,
There is a wide difference between entrapment and
does not act with intent. In paragraph 4 of Article 12, it is specifically
instigation, for a while in the latter case the instigator practically
stated that the actor causes an injury by mere accident without
induced the would-be accused into the commission of the offense
intention of causing it.
and himself becomes a co-principal, in entrapment, ways and means
are resorted to for the purpose of trapping the lawbreaker in the
N. WHAT IS AN ABSOLUTORY CAUSE?
execution of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar tot he
Absolutory cause are those where the act committed is a
prosecution and conviction of the law breaker. But when there is
crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is not
instigation, the accused must bee acquitted
penalty imposed
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 27

In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to


trap and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. In
instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant Q.1. DISCUSS PEOPLE V. CASIO, G.R. NO. 211465, 03
into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. In DECEMBER 2014.
entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal. The
idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. In PEOPLE V. CASIO (1)
instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime Facts: On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a
and suggests to the accused who adopt the idea and carries it into nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police in order to
execution. The legal effect of entrapment do not exempt the criminal entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Chief PSI
from liability. Instigation does. George Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1
Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso composed the team of
In instigation, a public officer or a private detective induces police operatives, Luardo and Veloso were designated as decoys,
an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests.
after the commission of the crime by the latter. It is an absolutory IJM provided them with marked money, which was recorded in the
cause. police blotter. The team went to Queensland Motel and rented
adjacent Rooms 24 and 25. Room 24 was designated for the
In entrapment, a person has planned, or is about to commit, transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. PO1
a crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in
trap and catch the criminal. Entrapment is not a defense. Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red light district where the
accused noticed them and called their attention. Negotiation occured
GN: and upon the signal, the accused was arrested and the two minors
were taken into custody by the DSWD officials.
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT

A law enforcement agent i A person has planned, or is


nduces an innocent person Issue:
about Whether
to commit or not accused is liable for trafficking of persons.
a crime
to commit a crime and would and ways are resorted to
arrest him upon or after the by a public officer to trap
commission of the crime. and catch the criminal.
Held: Yes. Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking
The law enforcement Idea to commit the crime
agent conceives the
in comes
persons have been expanded to include the following acts:
from the offender.
commission of the
crime and suggests
it to the accused.
(1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
An absolutory cause. Not an absolutory
transportation, transfer,cause.
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 28

with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not
national borders;” involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.”

(2) The means used include “by means of threat, or use of force, or Accused is further guilty of qualified trafficking. SEC. 6. Qualified
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power Trafficking in Persons.— The following are considered as qualified
or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, trafficking:
the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent
of a person having control over another person”
1. When the trafficked person is a child;
2. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No.
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the exploitation or the 8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced 1995” and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs” pornography, sexual exploitation,forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large
The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited by scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if
accused when their services were peddled to the police who acted as carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
decoys. AAA was a child at the time that accused peddled conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
her services.66 to work as a prostitute because she needed money. committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or
AAA also stated that she agreed Accused took advantage of AAA’s more persons, individually or as a group;
vulnerability as a child and as one who need money, as proven by 4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian
the testimonies of the witnesses. or a person who exercise authority over the trafficked person
or when the offense is committed by a public officer or
employee;
Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic 5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in
Act No. 9208. prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law
enforcement agencies; and
“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or 7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in
receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers
is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunod eficiency Virus
(HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 29

team proceeded to Room 24, arrested accused, and informed her


PEOPLE V. CASIO (2) of her constitutional rights.
DOCTRINE • Accused argues that there was no valid entrapment. Instead, she
Difference between entrapment and instigation is where the intent to was instigated into committing the crime. The police did not
commit the crime originates. In entrapment, the idea and resolve to conduct prior surveillance and did not even know who their subject
commit the crime originate from the accused himself. The authorities was.Neither did the police know the identities of the alleged victims
merely provide mechanisms to ensure the apprehension of the
• Accused further argues that under the subjective test, she should
criminal while in actual commission of the crime. On the other hand,
be acquitted because the prosecution did not present evidence that
in instigation, the authority conceives the commission of the crime
would prove she had a history of engaging in human trafficking or
and suggests to the accused who adopts and carries it into action.
any other offense. She denied being a pimp and asserted that she
Entrapment is lawful, instigation is not.
was a laundry woman

SUMMARY Petitioner was caught trafficking minors via offering their


ISSUE
services to the undercover policemen in an entrapment operation.
• W/N the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid,
She alleged that she was instigated in committing the crime because
considering that there was no prior surveillance and the police did
no prior surveillance was conducted by the authorities.
not know the subject of the operation

RELEVANT FACTS • International Justice Mission (IJM),a • W/N the prosecution was able to prove accused’s guilt beyond
nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police in order to reasonable doubt even though there was no evidence presented to
entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City • PO1 show that accused has a history of engaging in human trafficking
Luardo and PO1 Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to
be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests. IJM provided
them with marked money, which was recorded in the police blotter.
• PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in
Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red light district. Accused
noticed them and called their attention by saying "Chicks mo
dong?" (Do you like girls, guys?). After having an agreement,
accused returned with 2 minor girls.
• PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo convinced accused to come with
them to Queensland Motel. Upon proceeding to Room 24, PO1
Veloso handed the marked money to accused.
• As accused counted the money, PO1 Veloso gave PSI Ylanan a
missed call. This was their pre-arranged signal. The rest of the
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 30

W/N the prosecution was 1. Two tests in determining the


able to prove accused’s guilt validity of entrapment 2. Entrapment vs Instigation
beyond reasonable doubt operations: a. Entrapment
even though there was no a. Objective test
- law officers employ ruses
- considers the nature of the
evidence presented to show and schemes to ensure the
police activity involved and the
that accused has a history of propriety of police conduct. apprehension of the criminal
engaging in human trafficking - focus of the inquiry: while in the actual
inducements used by commission
government of the crime
agents, on police conduct - the mens rea originates
- test of entrapment is whether from the mind of the criminal.
the conduct of the law The
enforcement agent was likely to idea and the resolve to
induce a normally lawabiding
commit the crime comes from
person, other than one who is
ready and willing, to him
commit the offense b. Instigation
b. Subjective test/ origin of intent - the accused is induced to
test commit the crime
- focus of the inquiry: accused's - the law officer conceives the
predisposition to commit the commission of the crime and
offense charged, his state of suggests to the accused who
mind and inclination before his adopts the idea and carries it
initial exposure to government into execution.
agents
- emphasizes the accused's
propensity to commit the offense
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 31

RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2013, finding accused Shirley A.
3. Under the subjective test,
Casio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4(a),
accused was predisposed to
qualified by Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, and sentencing
commit the offense because
her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
she initiated the transaction
₱2,000,000.00, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant shall
- It was the accused- not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate
appellant who commenced Sentence Law) in accordance with Section 3 of Republic Act No.
the transaction with PO1 9346.92
Luardo and PO1 Veloso by
calling their attention on The award of damages is likewise MODIFIED as follows: Accused is
whether they wanted girls ordered to pay each of the private complainants:
for that evening, and when (1) ₱500,000.00 as moral damages; and
the officers responded, it (2) ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages. SO ORDERED.
was the accused- appellant
who told them to wait
while she would fetch the
girls for their perusal. Facts: On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a
4. Under the objective test, nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police in order to
the entrapment would still be entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Chief PSI
valid. The police merely George Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1
proceeded to D. Jakosalem Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso composed the team of
Street in Barangay police operatives, Luardo and Veloso were designated as decoys,
Kamagayan. It was accused pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests.
who asked them whether they IJM provided them with marked money, which was recorded in the
wanted girls. There was no police blotter. The team went to Queensland Motel and rented
illicit inducement on the part adjacent Rooms 24 and 25. Room 24 was designated for the
of the police for the accused transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. PO1
to commit the crime. Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in
Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red light district where the
accused noticed them and called their attention. Negotiation occured
and upon the signal, the accused was arrested and the two minors
were taken into custody by the DSWD officials.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 32

Issue: Whether or not accused is liable for trafficking of persons. Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic
Act No. 9208.

Held: Yes. Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking
in persons have been expanded to include the following acts:
“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or
receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption
(1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not
with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.”
national borders;”

Accused is further guilty of qualified trafficking. SEC. 6. Qualified


(2) The means used include “by means of threat, or use of force, or Trafficking in Persons.— The following are considered as qualified
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power trafficking:
or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or,
the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent
of a person having control over another person” 1. When the trafficked person is a child;
2. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No.
8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the exploitation or the 1995” and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced pornography, sexual exploitation,forced labor, slavery,
labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs” involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large
scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if
The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited by carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
accused when their services were peddled to the police who acted as conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
decoys. AAA was a child at the time that accused peddled committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or
her services.66 to work as a prostitute because she needed money. more persons, individually or as a group;
AAA also stated that she agreed Accused took advantage of AAA’s 4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian
vulnerability as a child and as one who need money, as proven by or a person who exercise authority over the trafficked person
the testimonies of the witnesses. or when the offense is committed by a public officer or
employee;
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 33

5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
prostitution with any member of the military or law 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise
enforcement agencies; of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law consciousness of his acts.
enforcement agencies; and 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in and analogous to those above mentioned.
persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers
mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunod eficiency Virus S. WHAT ARE THE CLASSES OF MITIGATING
(HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). CIRCUMSTANCES? EXPLAIN EACH.
Ordinary - that whereby the penalty is lowered to the
R. MEMORIZE ARTICLE 13. minimum period. They are those enumerated under Article 13 for this
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating code
circumstances; Privileged- one whereby the penalty prescribed whether the
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the divisible or indivisible is lowered by one or more degrees
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in Specific - applies to a specific felony like concealment of dishonor in
the respective cases are not attendant. the case of abortion by the pregnant woman herself
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded T. DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN ORDINARY MITIGATING
against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. CIRCUMSTANCE AND A PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a CIRCUMSTANCE.
wrong as that committed. Ordinary
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the 1. Can be offset by generic aggravating circumstance
offended party immediately preceded the act. 2. Penalty is lowered to the minimum periods of the penalty
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of prescribed except in cases where there are two ordinary
a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, mitigating and no aggravating circumstance in which case, the
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. penalty is lowered by one degree only
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as 3. Not considered when what is prescribed is single indivisible
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. penalty (but is considered when the penalty prescribed is
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a composed of two indivisible penalties under Article 63)
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed Privileged
his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for 1. Cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance
the prosecution; 2. Penalty is lowered by degrees
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise 3. Always considered no matter what penalty is imposed
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 34

EXAMPLE: JUAN IS SUPPOSED TO ARREST PEDRO. HE THUS


Z. EXPLAIN EACH OF THE 10 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. GOES TO PEDRO’S HIDEOUT. JUAN SEES A MAN ASLEEP.
DISCUSS THEIR REQUISITES. THINKING IT WAS PEDRO, JUAN SHOT HIM. JUAN MAY HAVE
ACTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY BUT THE CRIME
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the WAS NOT A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE THEREOF.
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal CONSIDERED AS MITIGATING.
liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
A. SELF-DEFENSE/DEFENSE OF RELATIVE/DEFENSE OF
A. MINORITY OVER 9 AND UNDER 15 – IF MINOR ACTED WITH
STRANGER – UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST BE PRESENT
DISCERNMENT, CONSIDERED MITIGATING
FOR ART 13 TO BE APPLICABLE. OTHER 2 ELEMENTS NOT
NECESSARY. IF 2 REQUISITES ARE PRESENT – CONSIDERED EXAMPLE: 13 YEAR OLD STOLE GOODS AT NIGHTTIME. ACTED
A PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. WITH DISCERNMENT AS SHOWN BY THE MANNER IN WHICH
THE ACT WAS COMMITTED.
EXAMPLE: JUAN MAKES FUN OF PEDRO. PEDRO GETS PISSED
OFF, GETS A KNIFE AND TRIES TO STAB JUAN. JUAN GRABS B. CAUSING INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT – IF 2ND REQUISITE
HIS OWN KNIFE AND KILLS PEDRO. INCOMPLETE SELF- (DUE CARE) AND 1ST PART OF 4TH REQUISITE (WITHOUT
DEFENSE BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THERE WAS UNLAWFUL FAULT – THUS NEGLIGENCE ONLY) ARE ABSENT,
AGGRESSION AND REASONABLE MEANS TO REPEL WAS CONSIDERED AS MITIGATING BECAUSE THE PENALTY IS
TAKEN, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART LOWER THAN THAT PROVIDED FOR INTENTIONAL FELONY.
OF JUAN. BUT SINCE 2 ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT, IT EXAMPLE: POLICE OFFICER TRIES TO STOP A FIGHT
CONSIDERED AS PRIVILEGED MITIGATING.
BETWEEN JUAN AND PEDRO BY FIRING HIS GUN IN THE AIR.
B. STATE OF NECESSITY (PAR 4) AVOIDANCE OF GREATER BULLET RICOCHETED AND KILLED PETRA. OFFICER
EVIL OR INJURY; IF ANY OF THE LAST 2 REQUISITES IS WILLFULLY DISCHARGED HIS GUN BUT WAS UNMINDFUL OF
ABSENT, THERE’S ONLY AN ORDINARY MITIGATING THE FACT THAT AREA WAS POPULATED.
CIRCUMSTANCE.
C. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR – ONLY ONE REQUISITE
EXAMPLE: WHILE DRIVING HIS CAR, JUAN SEES PEDRO PRESENT, CONSIDERED MITIGATING
CARELESSLY CROSSING THE STREET. JUAN SWERVES TO EXAMPLE: UNDER THREAT THAT THEIR FARM WILL BE
AVOID HIM, THUS HITTING A MOTORBIKE WITH 2 BURNED, PEDRO AND JUAN TOOK TURNS GUARDING IT AT
PASSENGERS, KILLING THEM INSTANTLY. NOT ALL NIGHT. PEDRO FIRED IN THE AIR WHEN A PERSON IN THE
REQUISITES TO JUSTIFY ACT WERE PRESENT BECAUSE SHADOWS REFUSED TO REVEAL HIS IDENTITY. JUAN WAS
HARM DONE TO AVOID INJURY IS GREATER. CONSIDERED AS AWAKENED AND SHOT THE UNIDENTIFIED PERSON. TURNED
MITIGATING. OUT TO BE A NEIGHBOR LOOKING FOR IS PET. JUAN MAY
C. PERFORMANCE OF DUTY (PAR 5) HAVE ACTED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF FEAR BUT SUCH
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 35

FEAR WAS NOT ENTIRELY UNCONTROLLABLE. CONSIDERED 3. THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO
MITIGATING GRAVE A WRONG AS THAT COMMITTED (PRAETER
INTENTIONAM)

2. THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OR CAN BE USED ONLY WHEN THE FACTS PROVE TO SHOW THAT
OVER 70 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, HE SHALL BE THERE IS A NOTABLE AND EVIDENT DISPROPORTION
PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BETWEEN MEANS EMPLOYED TO EXECUTE THE CRIMINAL
PROVISIONS OF ART 192 OF PD 903 ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

APPLICABLE TO: INTENTION: AS AN INTERNAL ACT, IS JUDGED BY THE


PROPORTION OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO THE EVIL
A. OFFENDER OVER 9, UNDER 15 WHO ACTED WITH PRODUCED BY THE ACT, AND ALSO BY THE FACT THAT THE
DISCERNMENT BLOW WAS OR WAS NOT AIMED AT A VITAL PART OF THE
B. OFFENDER OVER 15, UNDER 18 BODY.

C. OFFENDER OVER 70 YEARS JUDGE BY CONSIDERING (1) THE WEAPON USED, (2) THE
INJURY INFLICTED AND (3) THE ATTITUDE OF MIND WHEN THE
AGE OF ACCUSED WHICH SHOULD BE DETERMINED AS HIS
ACCUSER ATTACKED THE OTHER.
AGE AT THE DATE OF COMMISSION OF CRIME, NOT DATE OF
TRIAL EXAMPLE: PEDRO STABBED TOMAS ON THE ARM. TOMAS DID
NOT HAVE THE WOUND TREATED, SO HE DIED FROM LOSS OF
VARIOUS AGES AND THEIR LEGAL EFFECTS
BLOOD.
A. UNDER 9 – EXEMPTIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
B. OVER 9, BELOW 15 – EXEMPTIVE; EXCEPT IF ACTED WITH
NOT APPLICABLE WHEN OFFENDER EMPLOYED BRUTE
DISCERNMENT
FORCE
C. MINOR DELINQUENT UNDER 18 – SENTENCE MAY BE
EXAMPLE: RAPIST CHOKED VICTIM. BRUTE FORCE OF
SUSPENDED (PD 603)
CHOKING CONTRADICTS CLAIM THAT HE HAD NO INTENTION
D. UNDER 18 – PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE TO KILL THE GIRL.
E. 18 AND ABOVE – FULL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
F. 70 AND ABOVE – MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE; NO ART 13, PAR 3 ADDRESSES ITSELF TO THE INTENTION OF THE
IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY; EXECUTION G. OF DEATH OFFENDER AT THE PARTICULAR MOMENT WHEN HE
SENTENCE IF ALREADY IMPOSED IS SUSPENDED AND EXECUTES OR COMMITS THE CRIMINAL ACT, NOT TO HIS
COMMUTED. INTENTION DURING THE PLANNING STAGE.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 36

IN CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS – IF VICTIM DOES NOT DIE, THE 1. SUFFICIENT – ADEQUATE ENOUGH TO EXCITE A PERSON
ABSENCE OF THE INTENT TO KILL REDUCES THE FELONY TO TO COMMIT THE WRONG AND MUST ACCORDINGLY BE
MERE PHYSICAL INJURIES. IT IS NOT CONSIDERED AS PROPORTIONATE TO ITS GRAVITY.
MITIGATING. MITIGATING ONLY WHEN THE VICTIM DIES.
2. SUFFICIENCY DEPENDS ON:
EXAMPLE: AS PART OF FUN-MAKING, JUAN MERELY THE ACT CONSTITUTING THE PROVOCATION
INTENDED TO BURN PEDRO’S CLOTHES. PEDRO RECEIVED
MINOR BURNS. JUAN IS CHARGED WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES. THE SOCIAL STANDING OF THE PERSON PROVOKED
HAD PEDRO DIED, JUAN WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE TIME AND PLACE PROVOCATION TOOK PLACE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
3. EXAMPLE: JUAN LIKES TO HIT AND CURSE HIS SERVANT.
NOT APPLICABLE TO FELONIES BY NEGLIGENCE. WHY? IN HIS SERVANT THUS KILLED HIM. THERE’S MITIGATING
FELONIES THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, THE OFFENDER ACTS CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION.
WITHOUT INTENT. THE INTENT IN INTENTIONAL FELONIES IS
4. WHEN IT WAS THE DEFENDANT WHO SOUGHT THE
REPLACED BY NEGLIGENCE, IMPRUDENCE, LACK OF
DECEASED, THE CHALLENGE TO FIGHT BY THE DECEASED IS
FORESIGHT OR LACK OF SKILL IN CULPABLE FELONIES.
NOT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION.
THERE IS NO INTENT ON THE PART OF THE OFFENDER WHICH
MAY BE CONSIDERED AS DIMINISHED. B. IT MUST ORIGINATE FROM THE OFFENDED PARTY

BASIS OF PAR 3: INTENT, AN ELEMENT OF VOLUNTARINESS IN 1. WHY? LAW SAYS THE PROVOCATION IS “ON THE PART OF
INTENTIONAL FELONY, IS DIMINISHED THE OFFENDED PARTY”

4. THAT THE SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT ON THE 2. EXAMPLE: TOMAS’ MOTHER INSULTED PETRA. PETRA KILLS
PART OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED TOMAS BECAUSE OF THE INSULTS. NO MITIGATING
THE ACT. CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE IT WAS THE MOTHER WHO
INSULTED HER, NOT TOMAS.

PROVOCATION – ANY UNJUST OR IMPROPER CONDUCT OR


ACT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, CAPABLE OF EXCITING, 3. PROVOCATION BY THE DECEASED IN THE FIRST STAGE
INCITING OR IRRITATING ANYONE. OF THE FIGHT IS NOT MITIGATING

BASIS: DIMINUTION OF INTELLIGENCE AND INTENT CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN THE ACCUSED KILLED HIM AFTER HE
HAD FLED BECAUSE THE DECEASED FROM THE MOMENT HE
REQUISITES:
FLED DID NOT GIVE ANY PROVOCATION FOR THE ACCUSED
A. PROVOCATION MUST BE SUFFICIENT. TO PURSUE AND ATTACK HIM.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 37

C. PROVOCATION MUST BE IMMEDIATE TO THE ACT., I.E., TO PROVOCATION


THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BY THE PERSON WHO IS
VINDICATION
PROVOKED
MADE DIRECTLY ONLY TO THE PERSON COMMITTING THE
WHY? IF THERE WAS AN INTERVAL OF TIME, THE CONDUCT FELONY GRAVE OFFENSE MAY BE ALSO AGAINST THE
OF THE OFFENDED PARTY COULD NOT HAVE EXCITED THE OFFENDER’S RELATIVES MENTIONED BY LAW
ACCUSED TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, HE HAVING
HAD TIME TO REGAIN HIS REASON AND TO EXERCISE SELF- CAUSE THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE PROVOCATION NEED NOT
CONTROL. BE A GRAVE OFFENSE OFFENDED PARTY MUST HAVE
DONE A GRAVE OFFENSE TO THE OFFENDER OR HIS
THREAT SHOULD NOT BE OFFENSIVE AND POSITIVELY
RELATIVES
STRONG BECAUSE IF IT WAS, THE THREAT TO INFLICT REAL
INJURY IS AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHICH MAY GIVE RISE NECESSARY THAT PROVOCATION OR THREAT IMMEDIATELY
TO SELF-DEFENSE AND THUS NO LONGER A MITIGATING PRECEDED THE ACT. NO TIME INTERVAL MAY BE
CIRCUMSTANCE PROXIMATE. TIME INTERVAL ALLOWED

5. THAT THE ACT WAS COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE MORE LENIENT IN VINDICATION BECAUSE OFFENSE
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE TO THE ONE CONCERNS THE HONOR OF THE PERSON. SUCH IS MORE
COMMITTING THE FELONY (DELITO), HIS SPOUSE, WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION THAN MERE SPITE AGAINST
ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS, LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR THE ONE GIVING THE PROVOCATION OR THREAT.
ADOPTED BROTHER OR SISTERS, OR RELATIVES BY VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE AND PASSION AND
AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREE. OBFUSCATION CAN’T BE COUNTED SEPARATELY AND
REQUISITES: INDEPENDENTLY

1. THERE’S A GRAVE OFFENSE DONE TO THE ONE 6. THAT OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE SO POWERFUL
COMMITTING THE FELONY ETC. AS NATURALLY TO HAVE PRODUCED PASSION OR
OBFUSCATION
THAT THE FELONY IS COMMITTED IN VINDICATION OF SUCH
GRAVE OFFENSE. PASSION AND OBFUSCATION IS MITIGATING: WHEN THERE
ARE CAUSES NATURALLY PRODUCING IN A PERSON
2. LAPSE OF TIME IS ALLOWED BETWEEN THE VINDICATION
POWERFUL EXCITEMENT, HE LOSES HIS REASON AND SELF-
AND THE ONE DOING THE OFFENSE (PROXIMATE TIME, NOT
CONTROL. THEREBY DISMISSING THE EXERCISE OF HIS WILL
JUST IMMEDIATELY AFTER)
POWER.
3. EXAMPLE: JUAN CAUGHT HIS WIFE AND HIS FRIEND IN A
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION ARE MITIGATING
COMPROMISING SITUATION. JUAN KILLS HIS FRIEND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY WHEN THE SAME ARISE FROM
NEXT DAY – STILL CONSIDERED PROXIMATE.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 38

LAWFUL SENTIMENTS (NOT MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE THE ACT MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A CONDITION OF
WHEN DONE IN THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE OR LAWLESSNESS) MIND. IF THE CAUSE OF THE LOSS OF SELF-CONTROL WAS
TRIVIAL AND SLIGHT, THE OBFUSCATION IS NOT MITIGATING.
REQUISITES FOR PASSION & OBFUSCATION
A. THE OFFENDER ACTED ON IMPULSE POWERFUL ENOUGH EXAMPLE: JUAN’S BOSS PUNCHED HIM FOR NOT GOING TO
TO PRODUCE PASSION OR OBFUSCATION WORK HE OTHER DAY. CAUSE IS SLIGHT.
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
B. THAT THE ACT WAS COMMITTED NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF
OF P&O WHEN MORE THAN 24 HOURS ELAPSED BETWEEN
LAWLESSNESS OR REVENGE
THE ALLEGED INSULT AND THE COMMISSION OF THE FELONY,
C. THE ACT MUST COME FROM LAWFUL SENTIMENTS OR SEVERAL HOURS HAVE PASSED BETWEEN THE CAUSE OF
ACT WHICH GAVE RISE TO PASSION AND OBFUSCATION THE P&O AND THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, OR AT LEAST
½ HOURS INTERVENED BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS FIGHT AND
A. THAT THERE BE AN ACT, BOTH UNLAWFUL AND UNJUST
SUBSEQUENT KILLING OF DECEASED BY ACCUSED.
B. THE ACT BE SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A CONDITION OF
NOT MITIGATING IF RELATIONSHIP IS ILLEGITIMATE
MIND
THE PASSION OR OBFUSCATION WILL BE CONSIDERED EVEN
C. THAT THE ACT WAS PROXIMATE TO THE CRIMINAL AC
IF IT IS BASED ONLY ON THE HONEST BELIEF OF THE
D. THE VICTIM MUST BE THE ONE WHO CAUSED THE PASSION OFFENDER, EVEN IF FACTS TURN OUT TO PROVE THAT HIS
OR OBFUSCATION BELIEFS WERE WRONG.
EXAMPLE: JUAN SAW TOMAS HITTING HIS (JUAN) SON. JUAN PASSION AND OBFUSCATION CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH
STABBED TOMAS. JUAN IS ENTITLED TO MITIGATING TREACHERY SINCE THE MEANS THAT THE OFFENDER HAS
CIRCUMSTANCE OF P&O AS HIS ACTUATION AROSE FROM A HAD TIME TO PONDER HIS COURSE OF ACTION.
NATURAL INSTINCT THAT IMPELS A FATHER TO RUSH TO THE
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION ARISING FROM ONE AND THE
RESCUE OF HIS SON.
SAME CAUSE SHOULD BE TREATED AS ONLY ONE MITIGATING
THE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR A FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY IS CIRCUMSTANCE
NOT THE PROPER SOURCE OF P&O.
VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE CAN’T CO-EXIST W/
EXAMPLE: A POLICEMAN ARRESTED JUAN AS HE WAS PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
MAKING A PUBLIC DISTURBANCE ON THE STREETS. JUAN’S
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION IRRESITIBLE FORCE
ANGER AND INDIGNATION RESULTING FROM THE ARREST
CAN’T BE CONSIDERED PASSIONATE OBFUSCATION BECAUSE MITIGATING EXEMPTING
THE POLICEMAN WAS DOING A LAWFUL ACT. NO PHYSICAL FORCE NEEDED REQUIRES PHYSICAL FORCE
FROM THE OFFENDER HIMSELF MUST COME FROM A 3RD
PERSON
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 39

MUST COME FROM LAWFUL SENTIMENTS UNLAWFUL SURRENDER MUST BE SPONTANEOUS – SHOWS HIS
INTEREST TO SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY TO THE
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION
AUTHORITIES
PRODUCED BY AN IMPULSE WHICH MAY BE CAUSED BY
PROVOCATION COMES FROM INJURED PARTY SPONTANEOUS – EMPHASIZES THE IDEA OF INNER IMPULSE,
ACTING WITHOUT EXTERNAL STIMULUS. THE CONDUCT OF
OFFENSE, WHICH ENGENDERS PERTURBATION OF MIND, THE ACCUSED, NOT HIS INTENTION ALONE, AFTER THE
NEED NOT BE IMMEDIATE. IT IS ONLY REQUIRED THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, DETERMINES THE
INFLUENCE THEREOF LASTS UNTIL THE CRIME IS COMMITTED SPONTANEITY OF THE SURRENDER.
MUST IMMEDIATELY PRECEDE THE COMMISSION OF THE
EXAMPLE: SURRENDERED AFTER 5 YEARS, NOT
CRIME
SPONTANEOUS ANYMORE.
EFFECT IS LOSS OF REASON AND SELF-CONTROL ON THE
EXAMPLE: SURRENDERED AFTER TALKING TO TOWN
PART OF THE OFFENDER SAME
COUNCILOR. NOT V.S. BECAUSE THERE’S AN EXTERNAL
7. THAT THE OFFENDER HAD VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED STIMULUS
HIMSELF TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR HIS AGENTS, OR
THAT HE HAD VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED HIS GUILT BEFORE CONDUCT MUST INDICATE A DESIRE TO OWN THE
THE COURT PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE PROSECUTION. NOT MITIGATING WHEN WARRANT ALREADY SERVED.
2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT: SURRENDER MAY BE CONSIDERED MITIGATING IF WARRANT
NOT SERVED OR RETURNED UNSERVED BECAUSE ACCUSED
A) VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED CAN’T BE LOCATED.
B) VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED HIS GUILT SURRENDER OF PERSON REQUIRED. NOT JUST OF WEAPON.
IF BOTH ARE PRESENT, CONSIDERED AS 2 INDEPENDENT PERSON IN AUTHORITY – ONE DIRECTLY VESTED WITH
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. MITIGATE PENALTY TO A JURISDICTION, WHETHER AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR AS A
GREATER EXTENT MEMBER OF SOME
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER: COURT/GOVERNMENT/CORPORATION/BOARD/COMMISSION.
BARRIO CAPTAIN/CHAIRMAN INCLUDED.
A) OFFENDER NOT ACTUALLY ARRESTED
AGENT OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY – PERSON WHO BY DIRECT
PROVISION OF LAW, OR BE ELECTION, OR BY APPOINTMENT
B) OFFENDER SURRENDERED TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS CHARGED WITH THE
OR THE LATTER’S AGENT MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER AND THE PROTECTION AND
C) SURRENDER WAS VOLUNTARY SECURITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY AND ANY PERSON WHO
COMES TO THE AID OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 40

RPC DOES NOT MAKE DISTINCTION AMONG THE VARIOUS PRESENT RULES OF COURT REQUIRE THAT EVEN IF
MOMENTS WHEN SURRENDER MAY OCCUR. ACCUSED PLEADED GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE, ITS
MANDATORY FOR COURT TO REQUIRE THE PROSECUTION TO
SURRENDER MUST BE BY REASON OF THE COMMISSION OF
PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEING LIKEWISE
THE CRIME FOR WHICH DEFENDANT IS CHARGED
ENTITLED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE, INTER ALIA,
REQUISITES FOR PLEA OF GUILTY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
A) OFFENDER SPONTANEOUSLY CONFESSED HIS GUILT 8. THAT THE OFFENDER IS DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND OR
B) CONFESSION OF GUILT WAS MADE IN OPEN COURT OTHERWISE SUFFERING FROM SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT W/C
(COMPETENT COURT) THUS RESTRICTS HIS MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE OR
COMMUNICATION W/ HIS FELLOW BEINGS.
C) CONFESSION OF GUILT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION BASIS: ONE SUFFERING FROM PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH
RESTRICTS HIM DOES NOT HAVE COMPLETE FREEDOM OF
PLEA MADE AFTER ARRAIGNMENT AND AFTER TRIAL HAS
ACTION AND THEREFORE, THERE IS DIMINUTION OF THAT
BEGUN DOES NOT ENTITLE ACCUSED TO HAVE PLEA
ELEMENT OF VOLUNTARINESS.
CONSIDERED AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN EDUCATED AND UNEDUCATED
PLEA IN THE RTC IN A CASE APPEALED FROM THE MTC IS
DEAF-MUTE OR BLIND PERSONS
NOT MITIGATING – MUST MAKE PLEA AT THE FIRST
OPPORTUNITY THE PHYSICAL DEFECT OF THE OFFENDER SHOULD
RESTRICT HIS MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE OR
PLEA DURING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS NO PLEA
COMMUNICATION WITH FELLOW BEINGS, THIS HAS BEEN
AT ALL
EXTENDED TO COVER CRIPPLES, ARMLESS PEOPLE EVEN
EVEN IF DURING ARRAIGNMENT, ACCUSED PLEADED NOT STUTTERERS.
GUILTY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AS
THE CIRCUMSTANCE ASSUMES THAT WITH THEIR PHYSICAL
LONG AS WITHDRAWS HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO THE
DEFECT, THE OFFENDERS DO NOT HAVE A COMPLETE
CHARGE BEFORE THE FISCAL COULD PRESENT HIS
FREEDOM OF ACTION THEREFORE DIMINISHING THE
EVIDENCE
ELEMENT OF VOLUNTARINESS IN THE COMMISSION OF A
PLEA TO A LESSER CHARGE IS NOT MITIGATING CRIME.
CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE TO BE VOLUNTARY PLEA OF
9. SUCH ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS WOULD DIMINISH
GUILTY, MUST BE TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED
THE EXERCISE OF THE WILL-POWER OF THE OFFENDER W/O
PLEA TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE AMENDED INFO, DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS.
LESSER THAN THAT CHARGED IN THE ORIGINAL INFO, IS
BASIS: DIMINUTION OF INTELLIGENCE AND INTENT
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
REQUISITES:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 41

A) ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER MUST DIMINISH THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH ARISE FROM:
EXERCISE OF HIS WILL-POWER
A) MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE OFFENDER
B) SUCH ILLNESS SHOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE OFFENDER EXAMPLE: JUAN AND TOMAS KILLED PEDRO. JUAN ACTED W/
OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS PASSION AND OBFUSCATION. ONLY JUAN WILL BE ENTITLED
WHEN THE OFFENDER COMPLETELY LOST THE EXERCISE OF TO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
WILL-POWER, IT MAY BE AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
B) PRIVATE RELATIONS WITH THE OFFENDED PARTY
DECEASED MIND, NOT AMOUNTING TO INSANITY, MAY GIVE
EXAMPLE: JUAN STOLE HIS BROTHER’S WATCH. JUAN SOLD IT
PLACE TO MITIGATION
TO PEDRO, WHO KNEW IT WAS STOLEN. THE CIRCUMSTANCE
10. AND ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE OF A SIMILAR NATURE OF RELATION AROSE FROM PRIVATE RELATION OF JUAN AND
AND ANALOGOUS TO THOSE ABOVE-MENTIONED THE BROTHER. DOES NOT MITIGATE PEDRO.
EXAMPLES OF “ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE”: C) OTHER PERSONAL CAUSE
A) DEFENDANT WHO IS 60 YEARS OLD WITH FAILING EXAMPLE: MINOR, ACTING WITH DISCERNMENT ROBBED
EYESIGHT IS SIMILAR TO A CASE OF ONE OVER 70 YEARS JUAN. PEDRO, PASSING BY, HELPED THE MINOR.
OLD CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY, MITIGATES LIABILITY OF
MINOR ONLY.
B) OUTRAGED FEELING OF OWNER OF ANIMAL TAKEN FOR
RANSOM IS ANALOGOUS TO VINDICATION OF GRAVE SHALL SERVE TO MITIGATE THE LIABILITY OF THE
OFFENSE PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES TO WHOM
C) IMPULSE OF JEALOUS FEELING, SIMILAR TO PASSION THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ATTENDANT.
AND OBFUSCATION CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER EXEMPTING NOR
MITIGATING
D) VOLUNTARY RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY, SIMILAR TO
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER A) MISTAKE IN THE BLOW
E) EXTREME POVERTY, SIMILAR TO INCOMPLETE B) MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM
JUSTIFICATION BASED ON STATE OF NECESSITY
C) ENTRAPMENT OF THE ACCUSED
NOT ANALOGOUS:
D) ACCUSED IS OVER 18 YEARS OLD
A) KILLING WRONG PERSON E) PERFORMANCE OF A RIGHTEOUS ACTION
B) NOT RESISTING ARREST NOT THE SAME AS VOLUNTARY
EXAMPLE: JUAN SAVED THE LIVES OF 99 PEOPLE BUT
SURRENDER
CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE LAST PERSON, HE IS STILL
C) RUNNING AMUCK IS NOT MITIGATING CRIMINALLY LIABLE
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 42

aa. No intention to comit so grave a wrong. Garcia v. People, At approximately 11:00 a.m. on September 26, 1999, petitioner, Fidel
G.R. No. 171951, 28 August 2009. Foz, Jr. and Armando Foz had a drinking spree at the apartment unit
of Bogie Tacuboy, which was adjacent to the house of Manuel K.
AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA, Petitioner,
Chy. At around 7:00 p.m., Chy appealed for the group to quiet down
vs.
as the noise from the videoke machine was blaring. It was not until
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Chy requested a second time that the group acceded. Unknown to
For review on certiorari is the Decision1 dated December 20, 2005 of Chy, this left petitioner irate and petitioner was heard to have said in
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.-CR No. 27544 affirming the the Ilocano vernacular, "Dayta a Manny napangas makaala caniac
Decision2 dated July 2, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), dayta." (This Manny is arrogant, I will lay a hand on him.)6
Branch 9, Aparri, Cagayan, which found petitioner Amado Garcia
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. Contested as well is the On September 28, 1999, the group met again to celebrate the
appellate court’s Resolution3 dated March 13, 2006 denying marriage of Ador Tacuboy not far from Chy’s apartment. Maya
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.4 Mabbun advised the group to stop singing lest they be told off again.
This further infuriated petitioner who remarked, "Talaga a napangas
On February 10, 2000, petitioner was charged with murder in an ni Manny saan ko a pagbayagen daytoy," meaning, "This Manny is
Information that alleges as follows: really arrogant, I will not let him live long."7
The undersigned, Provincial Prosecutor accuses AMADO GARCIA Yet again, at around 12:00 p.m. on September 29, 1999, the group
@ Manding of the crime of Murder, defined and penalized under convened at the house of Foz and Garcia. There, petitioner, Foz, Jr.
Article [248] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act and Fred Rillon mused over the drinking session on the 26th and
No. 7659, committed as follows: 28th of September and the confrontation with Chy. Enraged at the
That on or about September 29, 1999, in the municipality of Aparri, memory, petitioner blurted out "Talaga a napangas dayta a day[t]oy a
province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Manny ikabbut ko ita." (This Manny is really arrogant, I will finish him
Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bottle, with intent to off today.)8 Later that afternoon, the group headed to the store of
kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, did then and there Adela dela Cruz where they drank until petitioner proposed that they
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, box, club and maul move to Punta. On their way to Punta, the group passed by the store
one Manuel K. Chy, inflicting upon the latter fatal injuries which of Aurelia Esquibel, Chy’s sister, and there, decided to have some
caused his death. drinks.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5 At this juncture, petitioner ordered Esquibel to call on Chy who,
incidentally, was coming out of his house at the time. Upon being
Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a not guilty plea. Thereafter,
summoned, the latter approached petitioner who suddenly punched
trial on the merits ensued.
him in the face. Chy cried out, "Bakit mo ako sinuntok hindi ka naman
The factual antecedents are as follows: [inaano]?" (Why did you box me[?] I’m not doing anything to
you.)9 But petitioner kept on assaulting him. Foz attempted to pacify
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 43

petitioner but was himself hit on the nose while Chy continued to SO ORDERED.10
parry the blows. Petitioner reached for a bottle of beer, and with it,
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a Decision
struck the lower back portion of Chy’s head. Then, Foz shoved Chy
dated December 20, 2005, thus:
causing the latter to fall.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is hereby [DENIED] and
When Chy found an opportunity to escape, he ran towards his house the July 2, 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri,
and phoned his wife Josefina to call the police. Chy told Josefina Cagayan, Branch [9], in Criminal Case No. 08-1185, is
about the mauling and complained of difficulty in breathing. Upon hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
reaching Chy’s house, the policemen knocked five times but nobody
answered. Josefina arrived minutes later, unlocked the door and SO ORDERED.11
found Chy lying unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating. He was Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied in a
pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The autopsy confirmed Resolution dated March 13, 2006.
that Chy died of myocardial infarction.
Hence, the instant appeal of petitioner on the following grounds:
After trial in due course, the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan (Branch 9)
I.
found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The
dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING OF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER IS THE ONE
WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment:
RESPONSIBLE FOR INFLICTING THE SLIGHT PHYSICAL
1) Finding AMADO GARCIA guilty beyond reasonable doubt INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE DECEASED MANUEL CHY.
for the crime of HOMICIDE defined and penalized by Article
II.
249 of the Revised Penal Code and after applying in his
favor the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING OF
hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate prison term THE TRIAL COURT FINDING PETITIONER LIABLE FOR THE
of TEN (10) YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR, as minimum, to DEATH OF MANUEL CHY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CAUSE
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of OF DEATH IS MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, A NON-VIOLENT
RECLUSION TEMPORAL as maximum; RELATED CAUSE OF DEATH.

2) Ordering him to pay the heirs of Manuel Chy the amount III.
of FIFTY THOUSAND (₱50,000.00) PESOS, as death THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING OF
indemnity; TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND (₱200,000.00) THE TRIAL COURT WHICH CONCLUDED THAT THE HEART
PESOS, representing expenses for the wake and burial; FAILURE OF MANUEL CHY WAS DUE TO "FRIGHT OR SHOCK
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (₱300,000.00) PESOS, as CAUSED BY THE MALTREATMENT."
moral damages; and THREE HUNDRED THIRTY[-]TWO
IV.
THOUSAND (₱332,000.00] PESOS, as loss of earning, plus
the cost of this suit.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 44

BOTH THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIAL COURT findings of the trial court do not find support in the evidence on record
ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER ON THE or where the judgment appealed from was based on a
GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT.12 misapprehension of facts.16 Neither exception applies in the instant
case as would justify a departure from the established rule.
In essence, the issue is whether or not petitioner is liable for the
death of Manuel Chy. Further, petitioner invokes a recognized exception to the rule on non-
In his undated Memorandum,13 petitioner insists on a review of the interference with the determination of the credibility of witnesses. He
factual findings of the trial court because the judge who penned the points out that the judge who penned the decision is not the judge
decision was not the same judge who heard the prosecution who received the evidence and heard the witnesses. But while the
evidence. He adds that the Court of Appeals had wrongly inferred situation obtains in this case, the exception does not. The records
from, misread and overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts, reveal that Judge Conrado F. Manauis inhibited from the proceedings
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.14 upon motion of no less than the petitioner himself. Consequently,
petitioner cannot seek protection from the alleged adverse
At the onset, petitioner denies laying a hand on Manuel Chy. Instead, consequence his own doing might have caused. For us to allow
he implicates Armando Foz as the author of the victim’s injuries. petitioner relief based on this argument would be to sanction a
Corollarily, he challenges the credibility of Armando’s brother, Fidel, travesty of the Rules which was designed to further, rather than
who testified concerning his sole culpability. Basically, petitioner subdue, the ends of justice.
disowns responsibility for Chy’s demise since the latter was found to
We reiterate, the efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by
have died of myocardial infarction. In support, he amplifies the
the fact that the ponente only took over from a colleague who had
testimony of Dr. Cleofas C. Antonio15 that Chy’s medical condition
earlier presided over the trial. It does not follow that the judge who
could have resulted in his death anytime. Petitioner asserts that, at
was not present during the trial, or a fraction thereof, cannot render a
most, he could be held liable for slight physical injuries because none
valid and just decision.17 Here, Judge Andres Q. Cipriano took over
of the blows he inflicted on Chy was fatal.
the case after Judge Manauis recused himself from the proceedings.
The Office of the Solicitor General reiterates the trial court’s Even so, Judge Cipriano not only heard the evidence for the defense,
assessment of the witnesses and its conclusion that the beating of he also had an opportunity to observe Dr. Cleofas Antonio who was
Chy was the proximate cause of his death. recalled to clarify certain points in his testimony. Worth mentioning,
Upon careful consideration of the evidence presented by the too, is the fact that Judge Cipriano presided during the taking of the
prosecution as well as the defense in this case, we are unable to testimonies of Fidel Foz, Jr. and Alvin Pascua on rebuttal.
consider the petitioner’s appeal with favor. In any case, it is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case in its
The present petition was brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of entirety to decide it on the basis of the records on hand.18 He can rely
Court, yet, petitioner raises questions of fact. Indeed, it is opportune on the transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrate the testimonies
to reiterate that this Court is not the proper forum from which to of witnesses in accordance with their conformity to common
secure a re-evaluation of factual issues, save where the factual experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 45

reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of Kidneys, purplish with glistening capsule. Cut sections show
law.19 congestion. Histopathological examinations show mild lymphocytic
infiltration.1avvphi1
The Autopsy Report on the body of Manuel Chy disclosed the
following injuries: Stomach, one-half (1/2) full with brownish and whitish materials and
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS other partially digested food particles.
CAUSE OF DEATH: - Myocardial Infarction. (Emphasis supplied.)20
Body embalmed, well preserved.
At first, petitioner denied employing violence against Chy. In his
Cyanotic lips and nailbeds.
undated Memorandum, however, he admitted inflicting injuries on the
Contusions, dark bluish red: 4.5 x 3.0 cms., lower portion of the deceased, albeit, limited his liability to slight physical injuries. He
left ear; 4.0 x 2.8 cms., left inferior mastoid region; 2.5 x 1.1 cms., argues that the superficial wounds sustained by Chy did not cause
upper lip; 2.7 x 1.0 cms., lower lip; 5.8 x 5.5 cms., dorsum of left his death.21 Quite the opposite, however, a conscientious analysis of
hand. the records would acquaint us with the causal connection between
Lacerated wound, 0.8 cm., involving mucosal surface of the upper the death of the victim and the mauling that preceded it. In open
lip on the right side. court, Dr. Antonio identified the immediate cause of Chy’s myocardial
infarction:
No fractures noted.
ATTY. TUMARU:
Brain with tortuous vessels. Cut sections show congestion. No
hemorrhage noted. Q: You diagnose[d] the cause of death to be myocardial infarction
that is because there was an occlusion in the artery that prevented
Heart, with abundant fat adherent on its epicardial surface. Cut
the flowing of blood into the heart?
sections show a reddish brown myocardium with an area of
hyperemia on the whole posterior wall, the lower portion of the A: That was not exactly seen at the autopsy table but it changes, the
anterior wall and the inferior portion of the septum. Coronary arteries, hyperemic changes [in] the heart muscle were the one[s] that made
gritty, with the caliber of the lumen reduced by approximately thirty us [think] or gave strong conclusion that it was myocardial infarction,
(30%) percent. Histopathological findings show mild fibrosis of the and most likely the cause is occlusion of the blood vessels itself.
myocardium. (Emphasis supplied.)22
Lungs, pleural surfaces, shiny; with color ranging from dark red to By definition, coronary occlusion23 is the complete obstruction of an
dark purple. Cut sections show a gray periphery with reddish brown artery of the heart, usually from progressive arteriosclerosis24 or the
central portion with fluid oozing on pressure with some reddish frothy thickening and loss of elasticity of the arterial walls. This can result
materials noted. Histopathological examinations show pulmonary from sudden emotion in a person with an existing arteriosclerosis;
edema and hemorrhages. otherwise, a heart attack will not occur.25 Dr. Jessica Romero testified
on direct examination relative to this point:
ATTY. CALASAN:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 46

Q: Could an excitement trigger a myocardial infarction? ATTY. CALASAN:


A: Excitement, I cannot say that if the patient is normal[;] that is[,] Q: I will repeat the question… Dr. Antonio testified that the deceased
considering that the patient [does] not have any previous [illness] of died because of the blow that was inflicted, it triggered the death of
hypertension, no previous history of myocardial [ischemia], no the deceased, do you agree with his findings, Doctor?
previous [arteriosis] or hardening of the arteries, then excitement
A: Not probably the blow but the reaction sir.
[cannot] cause myocardial infarction. (Emphasis supplied.)26
Q: So you agree with him, Doctor?
The Autopsy Report bears out that Chy has a mild fibrosis of the
myocardium27 caused by a previous heart attack. Said fibrosis28 or A: It could be, sir.
formation of fibrous tissue or scar tissue rendered the middle and Q: You agree with him on that point, Doctor?
thickest layer of the victim’s heart less elastic and vulnerable to
A: Yes, sir.30
coronary occlusion from sudden emotion. This causation is
elucidated by the testimony of Dr. Antonio: It can be reasonably inferred from the foregoing statements that the
emotional strain from the beating aggravated Chy’s delicate
ATTY. CALASAN:
constitution and led to his death. The inevitable conclusion then
Q: You said that the physical injuries will cause no crisis on the part surfaces that the myocardial infarction suffered by the victim was the
of the victim, Doctor? direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony that petitioner
A: Yes, sir. had intended to commit.

Q: And [these] physical injuries [were] caused by the [boxing] on the Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability
mouth and[/]or hitting on the nape by a bottle? shall be incurred "by any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended." The
A: Yes, sir.
essential requisites for the application of this provision are: (a) the
Q: On the part of the deceased, that [was] caused definitely by intended act is felonious; (b) the resulting act is likewise a felony; and
emotional crisis, Doctor? (c) the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the
actor’s wrongful acts.31lawph!l
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And because of this emotional crisis the heart palpitated so fast, In this case, petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed the
so much so, that there was less oxygen being pumped by the heart? victim and hit him with a bottle. Hence, the fact that Chy was
previously afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter petitioner’s
A: Yes, sir. liability for his death. Ingrained in our jurisprudence is the doctrine
Q: And definitely that caused his death, Doctor? laid down in the case of United States v. Brobst32 that:

A: Yes, sir, it could be.29 x x x where death results as a direct consequence of the use of
illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened
In concurrence, Dr. Antonio A. Paguirigan also testified as follows:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 47

condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not of prisión mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility.33 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
In the same vein, United States v. Rodriguez34 enunciates that: We shall, however, modify the award of damages to the heirs of
x x x although the assaulted party was previously affected by some Manuel Chy for his loss of earning capacity in the amount of
internal malady, if, because of a blow given with the hand or the ₱332,000. In fixing the indemnity, the victim’s actual income at the
foot, his death was hastened, beyond peradventure he is time of death and probable life expectancy are taken into account.
For this purpose, the Court adopts the formula used in People v.
responsible therefor who produced the cause for such acceleration
Malinao:42
as the result of a voluntary and unlawfully inflicted injury. (Emphasis
supplied.)35 Net earning capacity = 2/3 x (80-age of x a reasonable portion of the
the victim at the annual net income which time of this death) would
In this jurisdiction, a person committing a felony is responsible for all
have been received
the natural and logical consequences resulting from it although the
unlawful act performed is different from the one he intended;36 "el que by the heirs for support.43
es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado" (he who is the
Branch 9 of the Aparri, Cagayan RTC took judicial notice of the
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).37 Thus, the
salary which Manuel Chy was receiving as a sheriff of the court. At
circumstance that petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the
the time of his death, Chy was 51 years old and was earning a gross
death of the victim does not exempt him from criminal liability. Since
monthly income of ₱10,600 or a gross annual income of ₱127,200.
he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said condition
But, in view of the victim’s delicate condition, the trial court reduced
simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3)38 of the
his life expectancy to 10 years. It also deducted ₱7,000 from Chy’s
Revised Penal Code.39 Nevertheless, we must appreciate as salary as reasonable living expense. However, the records are bereft
mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner the fact that the physical of showing that the heirs of Chy submitted evidence to substantiate
injuries he inflicted on the victim, could not have resulted naturally actual living expenses. And in the absence of proof of living
and logically, in the actual death of the victim, if the latter’s heart was expenses, jurisprudence44 approximates net income to be 50% of the
in good condition. gross income. Accordingly, by reason of his death, the heirs of
Considering that the petitioner has in his favor the mitigating Manuel Chy should be awarded ₱1,229,600 as loss of earning
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that capacity, computed as follows:
committed without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, the
2/3
imposable penalty should be in the minimum period, that is, reclusion Net x
temporal in its minimum period,40or anywhere from twelve (12) years earni (80
and one (1) day to fourteen years (14) years and eight (8) months. ng = -
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,41 the trial court properly capa 51)
imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years city x
[₱1
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 48

27, of moral damages is reduced to ₱50,000. Petitioner is further ordered


200 to indemnify the heirs of Manuel K. Chy ₱50,000 as civil indemnity;
- ₱200,000, representing expenses for the wake and burial; and
1/2 ₱1,229,600 as loss of earning capacity.
(₱1
27, No pronouncement as to costs.
200 SO ORDERED.
)]
2/3 Case Digest: Amado Alvarado Garcia vs. People of the
x PhilippinesG.R. No. 171951 28 August 2009
(29
= )x FACTS:
₱6 The Fozes were having a drinking spree at their apartment when Chy
3,6 asked them to quiet down to whichGarcia commented that Chy was
00
being arrogant and that one day he would lay a hand on him. Two
19
days
1/3
x later, the group decided to drink at a store owned by Chy’s sister,
=
₱6 Esquibel. Chy was about to come out
3,6
00 of his house and upon being summoned, Garcia suddenly punched
₱1, him. Chy continued to parry theblows and when he found an
229 opportunity to escape, he ran home and phoned his wife to call the
=
,60 policeregarding the mauling. He also complained of difficulty
0 in breathing. He was found later unconscious onthe kitchen floor,
salivating.Cause of death is heart attack to which Garcia appeals that
the injuries he caused were not as violent innature as to have caused
We sustain the trial court’s grant of funerary expense of ₱200,000 as
the death of Chy. Garcia pleaded not guilty to the crime of
stipulated by the parties45 and civil indemnity of ₱50,000.46 Anent
homicide. Theautopsy doctor confirms that the boxing and the
moral damages, the same is mandatory in cases of murder and
striking of the bottle beer on the victim could not have
homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of
the victim.47 However, in obedience to the controlling case law, the caused any direct physical effect to cause the heart attack if the
amount of moral damages should be reduced to ₱50,000. victim’s heart is healthy. What could
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 20, 2005 and the have caused said heart attack is the victims emotions concerning the
Resolution dated March 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.- violence inflicted upon him.
CR No. 27544 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award ISSUE:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 49

Whether the circumstance of having no intention to commit so grave also ordered to pay private offended party P19,361.15 as actual
a wrong as that committed shouldbe appreciated damages and P10,000 as attorney’s fee.
RULING: The Information against petitioner reads:
The circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so grave an evil On October 4, 1998, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, at
as the death of the victim does notexempt him from criminal Sitio Puntod, Barangay Balagnan, Balingasag, Misamis
liability. Since he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, Oriental, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
saidcondition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article above-named accused, with intent to kill, did, then and there,
13(3) of the Revised Penal Code.Nevertheless, said willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, and stab
circumstance must be appreciated in favour of the petitioner. The fact one Roy Mangaya-ay with the use of a bolo, thus, inflicting a
that thephysical injuries he inflicted on the victim could not have mortal wound on the abdomen of the latter; accused thereby
naturally and logically caused the actual death performed all the acts of execution which would have
produced the felony of Homicide which was not produced
of the victim, if the latter’s heart is in good condition.
because of the timely and effective medical attendance
Considering this mitigating circumstance, imposable penalty should administered on the said victim.
be in the minimum period, that is,reclusion temporal in its minimum
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 249, in relation
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial
with Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.3
courtproperly imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of
ten (10) years of prision mayor, asminimum, to fourteen (14) years When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial thereafter
and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. ensued.
bb. Provocation. Romera v. People, G.R. No. 151978, 14 July The facts, as summarized by the Court of Appeals and borne by the
2004. records, are as follows:
ARTURO ROMERA, petitioner, In the afternoon of October 4, 1998, petitioner Arturo Romera was
vs. with the victim, Roy Mangaya-ay, and five other men namely, Eligario
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. "Beboy" Acenas, Dennis "Bobong" Mangaya-ay, Ric Mangaya-ay,
For review on certiorari is the Decision1 dated January 11, 2002 of Bebing Zulueta and Franklin Generol. They were all headed for
the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR. No. 23753, affirming the Biasong to play volleyball. When they reached Biasong, it was
August 16, 1999 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de raining, so they decided to while away time at the house of Ciriaca
Oro City, Branch 24, in Criminal Case No. 98-1089. The RTC Capil. Franklin Generol hung a string made of cigarette foil on Bebing
convicted petitioner Arturo Romera of frustrated homicide and Zulueta’s pants and said, "There’s a monkey among us." Everybody
sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from one (1) year, eight (8) laughed except Roy Mangaya-ay, who got angry and chided Franklin
months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional as minimum to Generol to stop lest he make enemies. Bebing Zulueta also got angry
six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. He was and pointed a finger at Franklin Generol and said, "Even if you are
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 50

stronger and older, if you will be hit by my fist, you will crawl." Petitioner tried to prevent Roy from entering, so he pushed the door
Petitioner then stood up and warned everyone, "You all watch out in shut. As Roy was hacking at the wall, petitioner’s wife held the door
Balaguan." He pulled Franklin Generol to join him and said, "Let’s go, to allow petitioner to exit in another door to face Roy. He hurled a
there are many boastful people here." Thereafter, petitioner and stone at Roy, who dodged it. Roy rushed to him and hacked him, but
Franklin left the group. he parried the blow. Petitioner grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy
in the stomach. Wounded, Roy begged petitioner for forgiveness.
At six o’clock in the evening, Roy and his companions arrived in
According to petitioner, he ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill
Balaguan. On their way home, they passed by the house of one
him.
Antonio Mangaya-ay. In said house, which is about one kilometer
away from petitioner’s own, they saw petitioner already carrying a The trial court discounted petitioner’s story of self-defense. It found
bolo waiting for them. that when petitioner got hold of the bolo, there was no more danger
Suddenly, raising the bolo with his right hand, petitioner uttered, to his life. Petitioner was convicted of frustrated homicide. The
"Here are the brave ones." Roy and his companions ran away but dispositive part of its decision reads:
Roy slipped on the muddy ground. Petitioner approached Roy and WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered,
said, "Come here, brave one." He held Roy up by the collar and finding accused ARTURO ROMERA guilty beyond reasonable doubt
stabbed him in the stomach. Roy fell unconscious. When he woke as principal of the offense charged. Consequently, taking into
up, he found himself at the provincial hospital where he underwent consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and
surgery and stayed for more than three weeks. the provisions of the [I]ndeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby
sentenced to a penalty ranging from One (1) year Eight (8) months
After the stabbing incident, petitioner voluntarily surrendered to a
and Twenty (20) days of Prision Correccional as minimum to Six (6)
certain Tibo Ramoso of the Citizen’s Armed Force Geographical Unit
years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as maximum and to pay the
(CAFGU). Ramoso accompanied petitioner to the Balingasay police
private offended party as actual damages, P19,361.15 and another
station.
sum of P10,000.00 as attorneys fee without, however, subsidiary
For his part, petitioner testified on what happened as follows: imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Petitioner and his family were having dinner in their house at around SO ORDERED.4
seven o’clock in the evening. Thereafter, they went to bed. While
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning to the trial
lying in bed, they heard Roy call petitioner and his wife, asking if they
court the following assignments of error:
had beer and a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because he
knew that Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for petitioner but when 1. FAILURE TO APPRECIATE THE THEORY OF SELF
the latter’s wife told him that petitioner was already asleep, he told DEFENSE.
her to wake her husband up. Petitioner went down the house and
2. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FAILURE TO APPRECIATE
asked who was at the door. Just as he opened the door for Roy, Roy
SPECIAL PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
thrust his bolo at him. He successfully parried the bolo and asked
Roy what it was all about. Roy answered he would kill petitioner.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 51

INCOMPLETE SELF DEFENSE, ARTICLE 69, REVISED PENAL For public respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
CODE WHICH LOWER THE PENALTY BY TWO DEGREES. counters that the mitigating circumstances of provocation and
passion or obfuscation are unavailing to petitioner since it was he
3. FURTHER ALTERNATIVE, FAILURE TO APPLY ARTICLE
who initiated the attack. The OSG insists that it was not the victim
62 (5) REVISED PENAL CODE, WHICH LOWER THE PENALTY BY
who went to petitioner’s house, but petitioner who went to where the
ONE DEGREE LOWER WITH THE PRESENCE OF TWO OR
victim was resting.
MORE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.5
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It pointed We note that while both the RTC and the Court of Appeals did not
out that assuming arguendo that it was the victim who was the categorically state who started the attack, it can be reasonably
aggressor at the start, the unlawful aggression ceased to exist when gleaned from their decisions that it was the victim who initiated the
petitioner took possession of the bolo from the victim. Absent aggressive encounter. This finding of fact is amply supported by the
unlawful aggression, the justifying circumstance of self-defense evidence on record.
becomes unavailing. Are the mitigating circumstances of provocation and passion or
obfuscation present in this case?
The appellate court also ruled that Article 696 of the Revised Penal
Code finds no application in this case. It explained that there can be Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him, and hacking
no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has the bamboo walls of his house are, in our view, sufficient provocation
committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his thinking, more
It held, however, that petitioner is entitled to the mitigating so when the lives of his wife and children are in danger. Petitioner
circumstance of voluntary surrender as it was established during trial stabbed the victim as a result of those provocations, and while
that after the incident he surrendered himself to the CAFGU and later petitioner was still in a fit of rage. In our view, there was sufficient
on to the police authorities. provocation and the circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended
Undeterred, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on the sole the commission of the offense.
ground that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals erroneously But, we must stress that provocation and passion or obfuscation are
failed to apply Article 64 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, which lowers not two separate mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the rule
the imposable penalty by one degree when two or more mitigating that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they
circumstances are present. should be treated together as one mitigating circumstance.7 From the
facts established in this case, it is clear that both circumstances
Petitioner contends that the victim provoked him to a fit of anger
arose from the same set of facts aforementioned. Hence, they should
when the latter woke him up and thrust a bolo at him without warning
not be treated as two separate mitigating circumstances.
as petitioner opened the door. Moreover, by hacking and destroying
the bamboo wall of his house, and endangering the lives of his Nonetheless, we hold that since the mitigating circumstance of
children, the victim also obfuscated his thinking and reasoning voluntary surrender is also present, Article 64 (5) of the Revised
processes, says the petitioner. Penal Code should be applied, to wit:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 52

ART. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three offended party P19,361.15 as actual damages, and P10,000.00 as
periods. –… attorney’s fees. Costs de oficio.
... SO ORDERED.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no cc. Immediate vindication of a grave offense. People v. Rosel,
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the G.R. No. L-46095, 10 Oct. 1938.
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
vs.
circumstances. CUSTODIA ROSEL, defendants-appellant.
...
The accused-appellant Custodia Rosel was convicted of the crime of
The penalty for frustrated homicide, pursuant to Article 508 of
the murder qualified by treachery, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
Revised Penal Code, is the penalty next lower in degree than that to indemnify the heirs of the offended party Francisco Baldostano in
prescribed by law for consummated homicide. The penalty for the sum of P1,000 and to pay the costs. From said judgment of
consummated homicide is reclusion temporal, hence the penalty next conviction he appealed to this court and, in support of his appeal, in
lower in degree is prision mayor. There being two mitigating his brief alleges that the trial court committed the following errors:
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, pursuant to Article 1. In not acquitting him on the ground that he merely acted in
64 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, the next lower penalty, prision
defense of himself;
correccional, is the next statutory penalty. But following the
Indeterminate Sentence Law herein applicable, the minimum term of 2. In finding that he wounded Francisco Baldostano with
the penalty that should be imposed on petitioner for frustrated treachery, notwithstanding that there is no evidence in the
homicide should be within the range of arresto mayor in any of its record showing the presence of such circumstance; and
periods or from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, 3. In holding that no justifying, exempting or mitigating
while the maximum term should be within the range of prision circumstances whatever were present in the commission of
correccional in its medium period or two (2) years, four (4) months the crime.
and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
The facts which gave rise to the prosecution of the appellant for the
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 11, 2002 of the Court of said crime of murder are, according to the record, briefly as follows:
Appeals affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan On the night of February 14, 1938 several persons, among them
de Oro City, Branch 24, is MODIFIED as far as the penalty imposed Francisco Baldostano, were gathered for a small celebration in the
is concerned. Petitioner ARTURO ROMERA is hereby sentenced to house of Hilario Ilada in the barrio of Guyo, municipality of Catubig,
suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, Province of Samar. Some entertained themselves by singing when
as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision the accused Custodia Rosel, Esperato Orsolino, Ignacio Alberne and
correccional, as maximum. He is also ORDERED to pay the private Pedro Gorlon arrived. Appellant greeted everybody in the house. In
answer Francisco Baldostano said rather sarcastically that strangers
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 53

should leave the place, adding in the following words more or less: "It they engendered obfuscation in him and impelled him to act, as he
is good I have means of livelihood. I have a rice land. You stranger did, in the immediate vindication of a grave offense.
(addressing the appellant) live at the expense of your wife." There
Considering the facts proven, our conclusion is that the crime
was no doubt that he referred to the appellant because he addressed
committed by the accused and appellant is that of murder. However,
the latter when he said, "You stranger . . . etc.", and because
there being present the fifth mitigating circumstance in the
appellant was not a native of the place. Appellant resented the
commission thereof, without any aggravating one to offset it, the
greeting or remark which Francisco Baldostano made concerning him
judgment rendered against him should be modified.
demanded an explanation. Were it not for the intervention of some
persons present, he would have attacked Baldostano at the very Wherefore, modifying the judgment appealed from appellant is
moment. He left for his house a little afterwards and returned about sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one
one-half hour later. Upon seeing that Francisco Baldostano was day prision mayor to seventeen years, four months and one day
engrossed in conversation with some of those who still remained in of reclusion temporal. In all other respects, said judgment is affirmed
the house, he propped his left arm against the railing of the stairs and with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
stabbed Baldostano from below in the left armpit with the bolo with ARTURO ROMERA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
which he was armed and withdrew immediately. The wound thus PHILIPPINES, respondent. G.R. No. 151978. July 14, 2004.
inflicted on Francisco Baldostano caused his death eight days later. FACTS:
So unexpected was the attack of which he was the object on the part
of the appellant that he was not able to lower his arm to protect his Arturo Romera and his friends were heading to Biasong to play
armpit or to lean forward to dodge the attack. This, undoubtedly, volleyball. On their way there, One of them, Franklin Generol made
constitutes treachery because the same is present when means, fun of Bebing Zuluetas. The victim, Roy Mangaya-ay sided with
methods or forms are employed in the execution of the crime which Zuluetas and scolded Generol. Romera who sided with Generol
tend directly and specially to insure its commission without risk to the threatened the others then left.
person of the aggressor resulting from the defense which the
offended party might make. The victim and his friends arrived in Balaguan, a kilometer away from
Testifying in his behalf, appellant declared that on the day after Antonio Mangaya-ay's house, Romera was seen carrying a bolo
wounding Francisco Baldostano he presented himself to policemen waiting for them. Romera chased them and the victim, who slipped,
Melecio Melendres and Juan whose surname he could not recall. It was stabbed. The victim woke up at the provincial hospital after
does not appear, however, that he informed them of the crime he had surgery.
committed for which reason they did not place him under
arrest.lâwphi1.nêt Romera's testimony was as follows: The victim, who was drunk, went
to Romera's house and disturbed his family. When Romera opened
The remarks of the deceased Francisco Baldostano under the
the door, the victim thrust him bolo at him and telling him he would kill
circumstances in which he made them were highly offensive to the
Romera. Romera went outside and prevented the victim from
appellant and to any other person in his place. It is not strange that
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 54

entering. Outside, the victim tried to hacked Romera again in which


he deflected the blow and then stabbed the victim. dd. Passion and obfuscation. People v. Bello, G.R. No. L-18792,
28 February 1964.
Romera contends that the victim provoked him to a fit of anger when THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
the latter woke him up and thrust a bolo at him without warning as he
vs.
opened the door. Moreover, by hacking and destroying the bamboo GUILLERMO BELLO, defendant-appellant.
wall of his house, and endangering the lives of his children, the victim
also obfuscated his thinking and reasoning processes. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Quezon in its
Criminal Case No. 592-G, for murder.
The trial court discounted petitioners story of self-defense. It found The information filed against the accused alleged four (4) aggravating
that when petitioner got hold of the bolo, there was no more danger circumstances, namely: treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime,
to his life. and superior strength. The trial court made a finding of "treachery,
evident premeditation and in cold blood and without any provocation";
Romera was convicted of frustrated homicide. however, the dispositive portion of the appealed decision states as
follows:
The CA affirmed the trial court's decision and reiterated that the
... the Court finds the accused Guillermo Bello guilty beyond
unlawful aggression ceased to exist when petitioner took possession
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder defined an punished by
of the bolo from the victim. Absent unlawful aggression, the justifying
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating
circumstance of self-defense becomes unavailing.
circumstances of (1) nighttime, (2) abuse of confidence and obvious
ungratefulness, (3) superior strength offset only by his surrender to
ISSUE: Whether the mitigating circumstances of provocation and
the authorities and hereby sentence him to DIE by electrocution in
passion or obfuscation present in this case
the manner provided by law ordering his heirs, after his death, to
indemnify the heirs o the deceased Alicia Cervantes in the sum of
RULING:
P3,000.00, wit costs.
YES. Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him, and
hacking the bamboo walls of his house are, in our view, sufficient The record bears out, the Office of the Solicitor General does not
provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his challenge, and the counsel de oficio agree with, and adopts, the
thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and children are in following findings of fact of the trial court:
danger. Romera stabbed the victim as a result of those provocations From the evidence adduced at the hearing of the case, it has been
and while he was still in a fit of rage. established to the satisfaction of the Court (1) that on September 17,
1954, the accused Guillermo Bello, a widower who at that time was
The Court also stressed that provocation and passion or obfuscation about 54 years of age, took a young peasant lady named Alicia
are not two separate mitigating circumstances. They should be Cervantes, about 24 years old his common-law wife; (2) that from
treated together as one mitigating circumstance.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 55

that day they lived together apparently in blissful harmony as man manner of a boa strangulating its prey and with his right hand
and wife without the benefit of marriage bearing, however, no child, stabbed Alicia several times with a balisong; (16) that seeing Alicia
...; (3) that on May 15, 1958, the accused who had no means of fallen on the ground and believing her to be mortally wounded, he
substantial livelihood except that of making "kaingin" and who fled and went to the municipal building and there surrendered himself
apparently was then in financial straits induced Alicia Cervantes to to the police of Gumaca.
accept an employment as entertainer in a bar and restaurant
Both the prosecution and the defense also agree that the crime
establishment known as Maring's Place situated the corner of
committed is not murder but only homicide, but they disagree in the
Aguinaldo and Bonifacio Streets, Gumaca, Quezon (4) that Alicia
qualifying or aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The
Cervantes entered the service of Maring's Place on that day as a
prosecution holds that the crime is homicide, aggravated by abuse of
public hostess; (5) that the accused being infatuated with his young
superior strength, but offset by voluntary surrender. On the other
bride used to watch her movements in Maring's Place everyday; (6)
hand, the defense maintains that the accused is entitled to the
that on May 16 he saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater in Gumaca
additional mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The
with a man whom the accused found later was caressing his
trial court held a different conclusion, as earlier stated.
common-law wife inside the movie house; (7) that being in love with
her he took her out from the movie and warned her to be more While it cannot be denied that Alicia was stabbed at the back, the
discreet in her personal conduct in Gumaca; (8) that Alicia Cervantes wound was but a part and continuation of the aggression. The four
continued to serve at Maring's Place as a public hostess; (9) that on (4) stab wounds (the 3 others were in the breast, hypogastric region,
May 20, 1958, at 3:00 p.m. the accused went to Maring's Place to and in the left wrist as shown in the certificate of the Municipal Health
ask for some money from Alicia; (10) that Maring, the owner of the Officer) were inflicted indiscriminately, without regard as to which
place, and Alicia refused to give money, Maring telling him to forget portion of her body was the subject of attack. The trial court itself
Alicia completely because he was already an old man, an invalid found that the stab in the back was inflicted as Alicia was running
besides and should stop bothering Alicia; (11) that having failed to away. For this reason, treachery cannot be imputed (People v.
obtain financial assistance from his paramour, accused left the place Cañete, 44 Phil. 478).
somewhat despondent and went home passing Bonifacio Street; (12) Evident premeditation was, likewise, not established. The accused
that on his way home he met the brothers Justo Marasigan and Luis had been carrying a balisong with him for a long time as a precaution
Marasigan who greeted the accused, Luis saying to his brother Justo against drunkards, and without any present plan or intent to use it
the following: "So this is the man whose wife is being used by Maring against his common-law wife. That he watched her movements daily
for white slave trade"; (13) that these remarks of Luis Marasigan manifest his jealous character, but there is no evidence that from this
naturally brought grief to the accused, to drown which he sought jealousy sprouted a plan to snuff out her life.1äwphï1.ñët
Paty's place in Gumaca where he drank 5 glasses of tuba; (14) that
The evidence does not show, either, any superior strength on the
from Paty's place he went to Realistic Studio which is in front of
part of the accused, and, not possessing it, he could not take
Maring's Place and from there watched the movements of Alicia; (15)
advantage of it. True that he was armed with a balisong, but he was
that at about 9:00 o'clock that night he entered Maring's Place and
old and baldado (invalid), while Alicia was in the prime of her youth,
without much ado held Alicia from behind with his left hand in the
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 56

and not infirm. The facts are not sufficient to draw a comparison of Both defense and prosecution agree that the accused-appellant is
their relative strength. Possession of a balisong gives an aggressor a entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
formidable advantage over the unarmed victim, but the physique of surrender to the authorities. The remaining area of conflict is reduced
the aggressor ought also to be considered. At any rate, taking into to whether the accused may lay claim to a second mitigating
account the emotional excitement of the accused, it is not clearly circumstance, that of having acted on a provocation sufficiently
shown that there was "intencion deliberada de prevalerse de la strong to cause passion and obfuscation. The defense submits that
superioridad o aprovecharse intencionadamente de la misma" (Sent. accused is so entitled, because the deceased's flat rejection of
TS. 5 Oct. 1906), i.e., deliberate intent to take advantage of superior petitioner's entreaties for her to quit her calling as a hostess and
strength. return to their former relation, aggravated by her sneering statement
that the accused was penniless and invalid (baldado), provoked the
The crime was committed at nighttime, but the accused did not seek
appellant, as he testified, into losing his head and stabbing the
or take advantage of it the better to accomplish his purpose. In fact,
deceased. The state disputes the claim primarily on the strength of
Maring's Place was bright and well-lighted; hence, the circumstance
the rule that passion and obfuscation can not be considered when
did not aggravate the crime. (U.S. vs. Ramos, et al., 2 Phil. 434; U.S.
"arising from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions" (U.S. vs.
vs. Bonete, 40 Phil. 958.)
Hicks, 14 Phil. 217).
We can not understand how the trial court came to couple the crime
with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence and We are inclined to agree with the defense, having due regard to the
obvious ungratefulness. There is nothing to show that the assailant circumstances disclosed by the record. It will be recalled that the
and his common-law wife reposed in one another any special lower court found that the accused had previously reproved the
deceased for allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger. Her loose
confidence that could be abused, or any gratitude owed by one to the
conduct was forcibly driven home to the accused by Marasigan's
other that ought to be respected, and which would bear any relation,
remark on the very day of the crime that the accused was the
or connection, with the crime committed. None is inferable from the
husband "whose wife was being used by Maring for purposes of
fact that the accused was much older than his victim, or that he was
prostitution," a remark that so deeply wounded the appellant's
penniless while she was able to earn a living and occasionally gave
feelings that he was driven to consume a large amount of wine (tuba)
him money, since both lived together as husband and wife. Neither is
before visiting Alicia (the deceased) to plead with her to leave her
it shown that the accused took advantage of any such special
work. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison with the accused,
confidence in order to carry out the crime.
therefore, was not motivated by any desire to lead a chaste life
Since the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident henceforth, but showed her determination to pursue a lucrative
premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, which could have profession that permitted her to distribute her favors indiscriminately.
qualified the crime as murder, were not present, and since the We can not see how the accused's insistence that she live with him
generic aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of again, and his rage at her rejection of the proposal, can be properly
confidence and obvious ungratefulness have not been established, qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions. Even
the accused can only be liable for homicide.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 57

without benefit of wedlock, a monogamous liaison appears morally of remark. The self-loathing Guillermo proceeded to Paty’s place and
a higher level than gainful promiscuity. downed give glasses of Tuba.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision should be, and hereby is, By nighttime of the same day, Guillermo returned to Maring’s Place
modified. This Court finds the accused-appellant, Guillermo Bello, and did then and there stab Alicia several times. Realizing what he
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, attended by had done, he ran to Gumarca and surrendered to the police there. He
two (2) mitigating circumstances: (a) passion and obfuscation, and was found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Quezon City of
(b) voluntary surrender, and, therefore, imposes upon him an murder attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
indeterminate sentence ranging from a minimum of six (6) years and alevosia, and abuse of confidence and ungratefulness; The penalty
one (1) day of prision mayor to a maximum of ten (10) years for which is death; thus the automatic review of the Supreme Court.
of prision mayor; orders him also to personally indemnify the heirs of ISSUES:
Alicia Cervantes in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs.
So ordered. Whether or not the victim should be given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation, albeit his relationship with
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
the victim being merely a common-law marriage?
vs. GUILLERMO BELLO, Defendant-Appellant.
HELD:
Facts:
Yes. By stare decisis, passion or obfuscation on the part of the
Guillermo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife without the offender must arise from legitimate and moral sentiments. Since
benefit of marriage. Guillermo was a 54 year old widower, and common-law marriages are considered unlawful in the Philippines,
Alicia’s senior by 30 years. Prior to Alicia’s employment at Maring’s Obfuscation, when relationship is illegitimate, cannot be appreciated
Place, the couple led a ‘blissful’ life. Due to poverty, Alicia became an
as a mitigating circumstance.
entertainer/public hostess at the said bar, and Guillermo used to
watch her there everyday; very much smitten by her beauty[1]. To answer this question, we must first differentiate the circumstances
of this case with that of U.S. v Hicks. In the said case, the common-
However, on May 16, Guillermo saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater
law wife of Mr. Hicks terminated her relations with the American, and
with a man, and surprised the man caressing her inside the movie
contracted new relations with a certain corporal. Mr. Hicks shot his
house. Guillermo dragged her outside.
ex-common-law-wife when she refused to go home with him and
Two weeks later, Guillermo visited Maring’s Place to ask Alicia for resume their relationship. Since they were not married, she was
money, but the owner, Maring (who was fantastically creative enough entitled to do so. What she did – cruel as it may be – was legal in the
to name the bar after him), told him to go home and to leave Alicia eyes of law. Passion and obfuscation were not appreciated in such a
alone because he was an old invalid. He proceeded to walk home case, since:
empty handed, but upon passing Bonifacio Street, he came across
1. The common-law wife had a right to leave her common-law
the Marasigan brothers who mocked him with the above stated husband, as they were not united in holy matrimony. He
had no right to compel her to go with him. Remember
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 58

that the first requirement of passion or obfuscation is that Contrary to law. 3


there be an unlawful act, sufficient to produce diminution
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and trial
of self-control or the exercise of will power.
ensued.
EE. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT.
The prosecution evidence, consisting of the testimonies of
PEOPLE V. FONTALBA, G.R. NO. L-3126, 05 JULY 1935.
Consolacion Javier Panit and Alma Javier, daughters of the victim
and accused-appellant, and SPO1 Rotelio Pacho are detailed as
FF. DEAF AND DUMB. PEOPLE V. NAVARRO, 97 PHIL. 990.
follows:

gg. Illness of the offender. People v. Javier, G.R. No. 130654, 28 Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier and the victim Florentina Laceste
July 1999. Javier were legally married on December 18, 1954. 4 In their forty-
one years of marriage, they begot ten children. Accused-appellant
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
and Florentina lived at Tubod, Sto. Tomas, La Union with one of their
vs.
daughters, Alma Javier.5
EDUARDO BASIN JAVIER, accused-appellant.
On June 15, 1996 between two o'clock and three o'clock in the
Before us on automatic review is the Decision 1 dated April 15, 1997
morning, Consolacion Javier Panit, who lives near her parent's house
of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32,2 in Criminal
about ten to fifteen meters away, heard her mother, Florentina
Case No. A-3155, convicting accused-appellant Eduardo Javier of
shouting "Arayatan dac ta papatayen nac ni Tatangyo" (Your father is
the crime of parricide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
going to kill me). After she heard her mother scream for help,
death and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of
Consolacion rushed out of her house and met her sister, Alma who,
P50,000.00 as moral damages and P21,730.00 as actual weeping, told her that their parents were quarrelling. Alma, at the
expenses.1âwphi1.nêt
time of the incident was living in her parents' house. Consolacion and
The Information filed before the trial court which charged accused- Alma then proceeded to their brother Manuel's house, which is
appellant with the crime of parricide reads as follows: located about seventy to eighty meters away from their parents'
house. The three then proceeded to their parents' house. Manuel,
That on or about the 15th day of June 1996, in the Municipality of
who entered first, found the lifeless body of his mother and his father,
Santo Tomas, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the
accused-appellant, wounded in the abdomen. Manuel then ordered
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
Consolacion to get a tricycle to bring their father to the hospital. At
the intent to and being then armed with a bolo, did then and there
this point, Manuel informed her sisters that their mother was dead
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use of
and that their father confessed to him that he killed his wife and there
personal violence, by hacking with the said weapon one
after allegedly stabbed himself. Florentina was found dead in their
FLORENTINA JAVIER Y LACESTE, his legitimate spouse, and as a
bedroom, drenched in her own blood. 6
result of which his said wife suffered fatal injuries which directly
caused her death immediately thereafter, to the damage and Accused-appellant was brought to the hospital by Consolacion's
prejudice of the heirs of the victim. husband, and her son, Jefferson, while Manuel went out to get help. 7
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 59

SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, assigned as desk investigator at the Sto. P21,730.00 as actual expenses; and to pay the cost of the
Tomas Police Station in La Union, testified in the investigation he proceedings.
conducted with SP04 Manuel Zarate and SPO1 Agaton Laroza
SO ORDERED.11
regarding the incident of June 15, 1996. He stated that he received a
call for assistance from the barangay captain of Tugod, Sto. Tomas In this appeal, accused-appellant alleged that the trial court erred in
because accused-appellant allegedly killed his wife. The police imposing the death penalty, considering the presence of two
authorities then proceeded to accused-appellant's house in Brgy. mitigating circumstances of illness of the offender and passion and
Tugod, Sto.Tomas, where they saw Florentina lying in the bedroom obfuscation. 12 While accused-appellant does not question the
floor covered with blood. Upon interviewing the victim's children, decision of the trial court in rejecting his defense of insanity, he
Pacho testified that Manuel told him that his father confessed to argues that he should be meted a lower penalty because at the time
killing his wife. Manuel then surrendered to him the bolo covered with of the incident, he was suffering from loss of sleep for a prolonged
blood which was found in the bedroom. The bolo was allegedly used period of time, which would have caused him to commit the crime.
by accused-appellant in assaulting his wife. 8 The medical findings He further contends that his suspicion that his wife was having an
indicated that the victim suffered from multiple injuries and her neck illicit relationship with another man, aggravated by his illness, goaded
was almost cut off from her body. 9 him to commit the crime.
Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier, in his testimony, admitted killing The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, argues that
his wife in their bedroom with the use of a sharp bolo. He identified accused-appellant cannot claim the mitigating circumstance of illness
the bolo as the same one presented by the prosecution as Exhibit "A" in the absence of a medical finding to support his claim. Accused-
and which he used in wounding himself. Accused-appellant told the appellant cannot likewise be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
court that he killed his wife because he could not sleep for almost a passion and obfuscation in the absence of sufficient evidence.
month. He claimed that when the killing took place, his mind went
We find the appeal bereft of merit.
totally blank and he did not know what he was doing. 10 He claims
that he was insane at the time of the incident. Accused-appellant, during trial, admitted killing his wife, but
interposed as defense the exempting circumstance of insanity.
The trial court rejected accused-appellant's defense of insanity and
However, the trial court rejected this defense of insanity for failure of
on April 15, 1997 rendered a decision finding him guilty of parricide
the defense to prove that accused-appellant was indeed insane at
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. The dispositive
the time of the incident. The defense never presented any medical
portion of the decision reads as follows:
record of the accused-appellant, nor was a psychiatrist ever
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration, the presented to validate the defense of insanity. Equally important, the
accused, Eduardo Javier y Basin is hereby sentenced to suffer the defense, during trial, never alleged the above-claimed mitigating
penalty of death; to pay the heirs of the victims the amount of circumstances of illness and passion and obfuscation, thus
P50,000.00 as moral damages for the death of the victim and weakening the case of accused-appellant.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 60

In this appeal, accused-appellant alleged that prior to the incident, he Neither can we appreciate the circumstance of passion and
had been suffering from insomnia for around a month, thus leading obfuscation to mitigate his criminal liability.
him to commit an act beyond his control, the killing of his wife,
In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and
Florentina. The defense went on to cite medical literature on the
to obfuscation, the following elements should concur: (1) there should
effects of total and partial sleep loss to support his contentions. 13
be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of
For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be mind; and (2) said act which produced the obfuscation was not far
appreciated, the law requires the presence of the following requisites: removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length
(1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his moral
offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender of equanimity. 15 The foregoing elements were not proved to be present
consciousness of his acts. 14 in instant case. In fact, during accused-appellant's testimony, he even
Since accused-appellant has already admitted to the killing, it is stated that he was not jealous of his wife.
incumbent upon him to prove the claimed mitigating circumstance of As correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General:
illness. In this case, however, aside from the testimony of the
In the case of appellant, there is lack of proof of the cause
accused that his mind went blank when he killed his wife due to loss
which produced alleged passion and obfuscation. Appellant, in his
of sleep, no medical finding was presented regarding his mental
testimony, did not account how he killed his wife nor did he explain
condition at the time of killing. This Court can hardly rely on the bare
the cause why he was prompted to kill his wife. Verily, there exists no
allegations of accused-appellant, nor on mere presumptions and
justifiable basis for applying to him this mitigating circumstance of
conjectures. No clear and convincing evidence was shown that
passion and obfuscation as the cause which produced it has not
accused-appellant was suffering an illness which diminished his
been established. 16
exercise of will-power at the time of the killing.
All told, the allegations propounded by accused-appellant that his
On the other hand, it is clear that accused-appellant was aware of the suspicions regarding his wife, aggravated by his illness made it
acts he committed. First, he remembered killing his wife in their possible for him to kill his own wife, is but a mere afterthought to
bedroom with the use of a bolo, where he mangled her neck twice; whittle down his criminal liability.
he remembered trying to commit suicide, by wounding himself with
the same bolo he used in killing his wife; and he remembered being Additionally, it is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts
brought to the hospital. Since he remembered the vital circumstances will generally not be disturbed by the appellate court because it is in
surrounding the ghastly incident, from the time of the killing up to the the best position to properly evaluate testimonial evidence
time he was brought to the hospital, it shows that he was in full considering that it observes the demeanor, conduct and attitude of
control of his mental faculties. This negates his claim that he was witnesses during the trial. In the case at bar, the trial court was able
suffering from an illness that diminished the exercise of his will- to observe the behavior of accused-appellant and it stated that his
power. On the basis of the foregoing, we cannot appreciate the recollection of the details surrounding the killing is so impeccable that
mitigating circumstance alleged by accused-appellant. only a person in his right mind can make it.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 61

Thus, the trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant of hh. Analogous circumstances. People v. Genosa, G.R. No.
the crime of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code 135981, 14 January 2004.
(as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, Section 5) which provides
that:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC
Any person who shall kill his father, mother or child, whether GENOSA, appellant.
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or
his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. for acquittal on a novel theory -- the battered woman syndrome
(BWS), which allegedly constitutes self-defense. Under the proven
The crime of parricide, not being a capital crime per se as it is not facts, however, she is not entitled to complete exoneration because
punishable by mandatory death penalty but by the flexible penalty there was no unlawful aggression -- no immediate and unexpected
of reclusion perpetua to death, two indivisible penalties, the attack on her by her batterer-husband at the time she shot him.
application of the lesser or the greater penalty depends on the
presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.17 Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense,
complete or incomplete.
In this case, the information for parricide against accused-appellant
did not allege any aggravating circumstance. Nor did the evidence But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on
show that the prosecution was able to prove any aggravating appellant constituted a form of cumulative provocation that broke
circumstance. 18 Likewise, no mitigating circumstance is appreciated down her psychological resistance and self-control. This
by this Court in favor of the accused-appellant. Thus, in the absence psychological paralysis she suffered diminished her will power,
of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance for the accused- thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and
appellant, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
imposed.
In addition, appellant should also be credited with the
As regards the monetary liability, the Court takes the amount of extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so
P50,000.00 imposed by the trial court as one of civil indemnity powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. The
instead of as moral damages.1âwphi1.nêt acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she was eight months
Union, Branch 32, in Criminal Case No. A-3155 is hereby AFFIRMED pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in the
with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Eduardo Javier y aforesaid emotional and mental state, which overcame her reason
Basin should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. and impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn childs.

SO ORDERED. Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances


arising from BWS, as well as the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, she may now apply for and be released from custody
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 62

on parole, because she has already served the minimum period of Cadaveric spasm.
her penalty while under detention during the pendency of this case.
Body on the 2nd stage of decomposition.
Face, black, blownup & swollen w/ evident post-mortem lividity. Eyes
The Case protruding from its sockets and tongue slightly protrudes out of the
mouth.
Fracture, open, depressed, circular located at the occipital bone of
For automatic review before this Court is the September 25,
the head, resulting [in] laceration of the brain, spontaneous rupture
1998 Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City
of the blood vessels on the posterior surface of the brain, laceration
(Branch 35) in Criminal Case No. 5016-0, finding Marivic Genosa
of the dura and meningeal vessels producing severe intracranial
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide. The decretal portion of
hemorrhage.
the Decision reads:
Blisters at both extrem[i]ties, anterior chest, posterior chest, trunk w/
WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered, the shedding of the epidermis.
Court finds the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond
Abdomen distended w/ gas. Trunk bloated.
reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide as provided under Article
246 of the Revised Penal Code as restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659, which caused his death.[4]
and after finding treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance
and none of mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences the accused With the assistance of her counsel,[5] appellant pleaded not guilty
with the penalty of DEATH. during her arraignment on March 3, 1997.[6] In due course, she was
tried for and convicted of parricide.
The Court likewise penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of the
deceased the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine
currency as indemnity and another sum of fifty thousand pesos
The Facts
(P50,000.00), Philippine currency as moral damages.[2]

The Information[3] charged appellant with parricide as follows:


Version of the Prosecution
That on or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay
Bilwang, Municipality of Isabel, Province of Leyte, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the
accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, prosecutions version of the facts in this wise:
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault,
Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19,
hit and wound one BEN GENOSA, her legitimate husband, with the
1983 in Ormoc City. Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in
use of a hard deadly weapon, which the accused had provided
their house at Isabel, Leyte. For a time, Bens younger brother, Alex,
herself for the purpose, [causing] the following wounds, to wit:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 63

and his wife lived with them too. Sometime in 1995, however, On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him
appellant and Ben rented from Steban Matiga a house at Barangay about the foul odor emanating from his house being rented by Ben
Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte where they lived with their two children, and appellant. Steban went there to find out the cause of the stench
namely: John Marben and Earl Pierre. but the house was locked from the inside. Since he did not have a
duplicate key with him, Steban destroyed the gate padlock with a
On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight
borrowed steel saw. He was able to get inside through the kitchen
after receiving their salary. They each had two (2) bottles of beer
door but only after destroying a window to reach a hook that locked it.
before heading home. Arturo would pass Bens house before
Alone, Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom where the offensive
reaching his. When they arrived at the house of Ben, he found out
smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben lying
that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to look for him. Ben went
on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his
inside his house, while Arturo went to a store across it, waiting until
9:00 in the evening for the masiao runner to place a bet. Arturo did briefs with injuries at the back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went
out of the house and sent word to the mother of Ben about his sons
not see appellant arrive but on his way home passing the side of the
misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada Genosa, the mother of Ben,
Genosas rented house, he heard her say I wont hesitate to kill you to
identified the dead body as that of [her] son.
which Ben replied Why kill me when I am innocent? That was the last
time Arturo saw Ben alive. Arturo also noticed that since then, the Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin,
Genosas rented house appeared uninhabited and was always then assigned at the police station at Isabel, Leyte, received a report
closed. regarding the foul smell at the Genosas rented house. Together with
On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close SPO1 Millares, SPO1 Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3
Acodesin proceeded to the house and went inside the bedroom
friend and neighbor living about fifty (50) meters from her house, to
where they found the dead body of Ben lying on his side wrapped
look after her pig because she was going to Cebu for a pregnancy
with a bedsheet. There was blood at the nape of Ben who only had
check-up. Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell her motorcycle to
his briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found in one corner at the side of
their neighbor Ronnie Dayandayan who unfortunately had no money
an aparador a metal pipe about two (2) meters from where Ben was,
to buy it.
leaning against a wall. The metal pipe measured three (3) feet and
That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was six (6) inches long with a diameter of one and half (1 1/2) inches. It
waiting for a bus going to Ormoc when he saw appellant going out of had an open end without a stop valve with a red stain at one end.
their house with her two kids in tow, each one carrying a bag, locking The bedroom was not in disarray.
the gate and taking her children to the waiting area where he was.
About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its
Joseph lived about fifty (50) meters behind the Genosas rented
stench, had to be taken outside at the back of the house before the
house. Joseph, appellant and her children rode the same bus to
postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the
Ormoc. They had no conversation as Joseph noticed that appellant
presence of the police. A municipal health officer at Isabel, Leyte
did not want to talk to him.
responsible for medico-legal cases, Dr. Cerillo found that Ben had
been dead for two to three days and his body was already
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 64

decomposing. The postmortem examination of Dr. Cerillo yielded the Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband
findings quoted in the Information for parricide later filed against by shooting him. She supposedly distorted the drawer where the gun
appellant. She concluded that the cause of Bens death was was and shot Ben. He did not die on the spot, though, but in the
cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage bedroom.[7] (Citations omitted)
due to a depressed fracture of the occipital [bone].
Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going home after
work on November 15, 1995, she got worried that her husband who Version of the Defense
was not home yet might have gone gambling since it was a payday.
With her cousin Ecel Arao, appellant went to look for Ben at the Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:
marketplace and taverns at Isabel, Leyte but did not find him there.
They found Ben drunk upon their return at the Genosas house. Ecel 1. Marivic and Ben Genosa were allegedly married on November 19,
went home despite appellants request for her to sleep in their house. 1983. Prior to her marriage, Marivic had graduated from San Carlos,
Cebu City, obtaining a degree of Bachelor of Science in Business
Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even
Administration, and was working, at the time of her husbands death,
challenging her to a fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead
as a Secretary to the Port Managers in Ormoc City. The couple had
attended to their children who were doing their homework. Apparently
three (3) children: John Marben, Earl Pierre and Marie Bianca.
disappointed with her reaction, Ben switched off the light and, with
the use of a chopping knife, cut the television antenna or wire to keep 2. Marivic and Ben had known each other since elementary school;
her from watching television. According to appellant, Ben was about they were neighbors in Bilwang; they were classmates; and they
to attack her so she ran to the bedroom, but he got hold of her hands were third degree cousins. Both sets of parents were against their
and whirled her around. She fell on the side of the bed and screamed relationship, but Ben was persistent and tried to stop other suitors
for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant packed his clothes because from courting her. Their closeness developed as he was her constant
she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed clothes upon his return partner at fiestas.
home, Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged appellant outside of 3. After their marriage, they lived first in the home of Bens parents,
the bedroom towards a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her together with Bens brother, Alex, in Isabel, Leyte. In the first year of
You might as well be killed so nobody would nag me. Appellant marriage, Marivic and Ben lived happily. But apparently, soon
testified that she was aware that there was a gun inside the drawer thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and their fights would
but since Ben did not have the key to it, he got a three-inch long become violent.
blade cutter from his wallet. She however, smashed the arm of Ben
4. Bens brother, Alex, testified for the prosecution that he could not
with a pipe, causing him to drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant
remember when Ben and Marivic married. He said that when Ben
then smashed Ben at his nape with the pipe as he was about to pick
and Marivic quarreled, generally when Ben would come home drunk,
up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom.
Marivic would inflict injuries on him. He said that in one incident in
1993 he saw Marivic holding a kitchen knife after Ben had shouted
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 65

for help as his left hand was covered with blood. Marivic left the the evening, he heard the Genosas arguing. They were quarreling
house but after a week, she returned apparently having asked for loudly. Outside their house was one Fredo who is used by Ben to
Bens forgiveness. In another incident in May 22, 1994, early morning, feed his fighting cocks. Basobas testimony on the root of the quarrel,
Alex and his father apparently rushed to Bens aid again and saw conveniently overheard by him was Marivic saying I will never
blood from Bens forehead and Marivic holding an empty bottle. Ben hesitate to kill you, whilst Ben replied Why kill me when I am
and Marivic reconciled after Marivic had apparently again asked for innocent. Basobas thought they were joking.
Bens forgiveness.
He did not hear them quarreling while he was across the road from
Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivics mother-in-law, testified too, saying the Genosa residence. Basobas admitted that he and Ben were
that Ben and Marivic married in 1986 or 1985 more or less here in always at the cockpits every Saturday and Sunday. He claims that he
Fatima, Ormoc City. She said as the marriage went along, Marivic once told Ben before when he was stricken with a bottle by Marivic
became already very demanding. Mrs. Iluminada Genosa said that Genosa that he should leave her and that Ben would always take her
after the birth of Marivics two sons, there were three (3) back after she would leave him so many times.
misunderstandings. The first was when Marivic stabbed Ben with a Basobas could not remember when Marivic had hit Ben, but it was a
table knife through his left arm; the second incident was on long time that they had been quarreling. He said Ben even had a
November 15, 1994, when Marivic struck Ben on the forehead using wound on the right forehead. He had known the couple for only one
a sharp instrument until the eye was also affected. It was wounded (1) year.
and also the ear and her husband went to Ben to help; and the third
incident was in 1995 when the couple had already transferred to the 6. Marivic testified that after the first year of marriage, Ben became
house in Bilwang and she saw that Bens hand was plastered as the cruel to her and was a habitual drinker. She said he provoked her, he
bone cracked. would slap her, sometimes he would pin her down on the bed, and
sometimes beat her.
Both mother and son claimed they brought Ben to a Pasar clinic for
medical intervention. These incidents happened several times and she would often run
home to her parents, but Ben would follow her and seek her out,
5. Arturo Basobas, a co-worker of Ben, testified that on November promising to change and would ask for her forgiveness. She said
15, 1995 After we collected our salary, we went to the cock-fighting after she would be beaten, she would seek medical help from Dr.
place of ISCO. They stayed there for three (3) hours, after which they Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. Cerillo. These doctors would enter
went to Uniloks and drank beer allegedly only two (2) bottles each. the injuries inflicted upon her by Ben into their reports. Marivic said
After drinking they bought barbeque and went to the Genosa Ben would beat her or quarrel with her every time he was drunk, at
residence. Marivic was not there. He stayed a while talking with Ben, least three times a week.
after which he went across the road to wait for the runner and the
usher of the masiao game because during that time, the hearing on 7. In her defense, witnesses who were not so closely related to
masiao numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the ushers and Marivic, testified as to the abuse and violence she received at the
runners so that I can place my bet. On his way home at about 9:00 in hands of Ben.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 66

7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman, who was a [neighbor] of the her. Mr. Sarabia also said that once he saw Ben had been injured
Genosas, testified that on November 15, 1995, he overheard a too. He said he voluntarily testified only that morning.
quarrel between Ben and Marivic. Marivic was shouting for help and
7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old student, who is a cousin of
through the open jalousies, he saw the spouses grappling with each
Marivic, testified that in the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic
other. Ben had Marivic in a choke hold. He did not do anything, but
went to her house and asked her help to look for Ben. They searched
had come voluntarily to testify. (Please note this was the same night
in the market place, several taverns and some other places, but
as that testified to by Arturo Busabos.[8])
could not find him. She accompanied Marivic home. Marivic wanted
7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a fisherman, and the brother of Mr. her to sleep with her in the Genosa house because she might be
Joe Barrientos, testified that he heard his neighbor Marivic shouting battered by her husband. When they got to the Genosa house at
on the night of November 15, 1995. He peeped through the window about 7:00 in the evening, Miss Arano said that her husband was
of his hut which is located beside the Genosa house and saw the already there and was drunk. Miss Arano knew he was drunk
spouses grappling with each other then Ben Genosa was holding because of his staggering walking and I can also detect his face.
with his both hands the neck of the accused, Marivic Genosa. He Marivic entered the house and she heard them quarrel noisily.
said after a while, Marivic was able to extricate he[r]self and enter the (Again, please note that this is the same night as that testified to by
room of the children. After that, he went back to work as he was to go Arturo Basobas) Miss Arano testified that this was not the first time
fishing that evening. He returned at 8:00 the next morning. (Again, Marivic had asked her to sleep in the house as Marivic would be
please note that this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo afraid every time her husband would come home drunk. At one time
Basobas). when she did sleep over, she was awakened at 10:00 in the evening
when Ben arrived because the couple were very noisy in the sala and
7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former neighbor of the Genosas
I had heard something was broken like a vase. She said Marivic ran
while they were living in Isabel, Leyte. His house was located about
into her room and they locked the door. When Ben couldnt get in he
fifty (50) meters from theirs. Marivic is his niece and he knew them to
got a chair and a knife and showed us the knife through the window
be living together for 13 or 14 years. He said the couple was always
grill and he scared us. She said that Marivic shouted for help, but no
quarreling. Marivic confided in him that Ben would pawn items and
one came. On cross-examination, she said that when she left
then would use the money to gamble. One time, he went to their
Marivics house on November 15, 1995, the couple were still
house and they were quarreling. Ben was so angry, but would be
quarreling.
pacified if somebody would come. He testified that while Ben was
alive he used to gamble and when he became drunk, he would go to 7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician testified that he and Marivic were co-
our house and he will say, Teody because that was what he used to employees at PHILPHOS, Isabel, Leyte. Marivic was his patient
call me, mokimas ta, which means lets go and look for a whore. Mr. many times and had also received treatment from other doctors. Dr.
Sarabia further testified that Ben would box his wife and I would see Caing testified that from July 6, 1989 until November 9, 1995, there
bruises and one time she ran to me, I noticed a wound (the witness were six (6) episodes of physical injuries inflicted upon Marivic.
pointed to his right breast) as according to her a knife was stricken to These injuries were reported in his Out-Patient Chart at the
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 67

PHILPHOS Hospital. The prosecution admitted the qualifications of violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy
Dr. Caing and considered him an expert witness. about his recent girlfriend, Lulu x x x Rubillos.
xxxxxxxxx On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she shot Ben with a gun; she
Dr. Caings clinical history of the tension headache and hypertention said that he died in the bedroom; that their quarrels could be heard
of Marivic on twenty-three (23) separate occasions was marked at by anyone passing their house; that Basobas lied in his testimony;
Exhibits 2 and 2-B. The OPD Chart of Marivic at the Philphos Clinic that she left for Manila the next day, November 16, 1995; that she did
which reflected all the consultations made by Marivic and the six (6) not bother anyone in Manila, rented herself a room, and got herself a
incidents of physical injuries reported was marked as Exhibit 3. job as a field researcher under the alias Marvelous Isidro; she did not
tell anyone that she was leaving Leyte, she just wanted to have a
On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that he is not a psychiatrist, he safe delivery of her baby; and that she was arrested in San Pablo,
could not say whether the injuries were directly related to the crime Laguna.
committed. He said it is only a psychiatrist who is qualified to
Answering questions from the Court, Marivic said that she threw the
examine the psychological make-up of the patient, whether she is
gun away; that she did not know what happened to the pipe she used
capable of committing a crime or not.
to smash him once; that she was wounded by Ben on her wrist with
7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay captain in the place where the the bolo; and that two (2) hours after she was whirled by Ben, he
Genosas resided, testified that about two (2) months before Ben kicked her ass and dragged her towards the drawer when he saw
died, Marivic went to his office past 8:00 in the evening. She sought that she had packed his things.
his help to settle or confront the Genosa couple who were
9. The body of Ben Genosa was found on November 18, 1995 after
experiencing family troubles. He told Marivic to return in the morning,
but he did not hear from her again and assumed that they might have an investigation was made of the foul odor emitting from the Genosa
settled with each other or they might have forgiven with each other. residence. This fact was testified to by all the prosecution witnesses
and some defense witnesses during the trial.
xxxxxxxxx
10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a physician, was the Municipal Health
Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she got home Officer of Isabel, Leyte at the time of the incident, and among her
that night it was her husband who began the provocation. Marivic responsibilities as such was to take charge of all medico-legal cases,
said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she such as the examination of cadavers and the autopsy of
wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, cadavers. Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic pathologist. She merely took
Marivic had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she the medical board exams and passed in 1986. She was called by the
was suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was police to go to the Genosa residence and when she got there, she
born prematurely on December 1, 1995. saw some police officer and neighbor around. She saw Ben Genosa,
Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her covered by a blanket, lying in a semi-prone position with his back to
husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben would always follow her the door. He was wearing only a brief.
and they would reconcile. Marivic said that the reason why Ben was xxxxxxxxx
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 68

Dra. Cerillo said that there is only one injury and that is the injury Judicial Records Office, wherein she submitted her Brief without
involving the skeletal area of the head which she described as a counsels to the Court.
fracture. And that based on her examination, Ben had been dead 2 or
This letter was stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 4 February
3 days. Dra. Cerillo did not testify as to what caused his death.
2000.
Dra. Cerillo was not cross-examined by defense counsel. 16. In the meantime, under date of 17 February 2000, and stamp-
11. The Information, dated November 14, 1996, filed against Marivic received by the Honorable Court on 19 February 2000, undersigned
Genosa charged her with the crime of PARRICIDE committed with counsel filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION praying that the
intent to kill, with treachery and evidence premeditation, x x x wilfully, Honorable Court allow the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound x x x her examination of the cause of his death; allow the examination of
legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon x x x which Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to
caused his death. determine her state of mind at the time she killed her husband; and
finally, to allow a partial re-opening of the case a quo to take the
12. Trial took place on 7 and 14 April 1997, 14 May 1997, 21 July
testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists.
1997, 17, 22 and 23 September 1997, 12 November 1997, 15 and 16
December 1997, 22 May 1998, and 5 and 6 August 1998. Attached to the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION was a letter of Dr.
Raquel Fortun, then the only qualified forensic pathologist in the
13. On 23 September 1998, or only fifty (50) days from the day of the
country, who opined that the description of the death wound (as
last trial date, the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, Presiding Judge, RTC-
culled from the post-mortem findings, Exhibit A) is more akin to a
Branch 35, Ormoc City, rendered a JUDGMENT finding Marivic guilty
gunshot wound than a beating with a lead pipe.
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide, and further found
treachery as an aggravating circumstance, thus sentencing her to the 17. In a RESOLUTION dated 29 September 2000, the Honorable
ultimate penalty of DEATH. Court partly granted Marivics URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION and
remanded the case to the trial court for the reception of expert
14. The case was elevated to this Honorable Court upon automatic
psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered woman
review and, under date of 24 January 2000, Marivics trial lawyer,
syndrome plea, within ninety (90) days from notice, and, thereafter to
Atty. Gil Marvel P. Tabucanon, filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel,
forthwith report to this Court the proceedings taken, together with the
attaching thereto, as a precautionary measure, two (2) drafts of
copies of the TSN and relevant documentary evidence, if any,
Appellants Briefs he had prepared for Marivic which, for reasons of
submitted.
her own, were not conformed to by her.
18. On 15 January 2001, Dra. Natividad A. Dayan appeared and
The Honorable Court allowed the withdrawal of Atty. Tabucanon and
testified before the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, RTC-Branch 35,
permitted the entry of appearance of undersigned counsel.
Ormoc City.
15. Without the knowledge of counsel, Marivic Genosa wrote a letter
Immediately before Dra. Dayan was sworn, the Court a quo asked if
dated 20 January 2000, to the Chief Justice, coursing the same
through Atty. Teresita G. Dimaisip, Deputy Clerk of Court of Chief she had interviewed Marivic Genosa. Dra. Dayan informed the Court
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 69

that interviews were done at the Penal Institution in 1999, but that the Dra. Dayan described domestic violence to comprise of a lot of
clinical interviews and psychological assessment were done at her incidents of psychological abuse, verbal abuse, and emotional abuse
clinic. to physical abuse and also sexual abuse.
Dra. Dayan testified that she has been a clinical psychologist for xxxxxxxxx
twenty (20) years with her own private clinic and connected presently Dra. Dayan testified that in her studies, the battered woman usually
to the De La Salle University as a professor. Before this, she was the has a very low opinion of herself. She has a self-defeating and self-
Head of the Psychology Department of the Assumption College; a sacrificing characteristics. x x x they usually think very lowly of
member of the faculty of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila themselves and so when the violence would happen, they usually
University and St. Josephs College; and was the counseling think that they provoke it, that they were the one who precipitated the
psychologist of the National Defense College. She has an AB in violence, they provoke their spouse to be physically, verbally and
Psychology from the University of the Philippines, a Master of Arts in even sexually abusive to them. Dra. Dayan said that usually a
Clinical [Counseling], Psychology from the Ateneo, and a PhD from battered x x x comes from a dysfunctional family or from broken
the U.P. She was the past president of the Psychological Association homes.
of the Philippines and is a member of the American Psychological
Association. She is the secretary of the International Council of Dra. Dayan said that the batterer, just like the battered woman, also
Psychologists from about 68 countries; a member of the Forensic has a very low opinion of himself. But then emerges to have
Psychology Association; and a member of the ASEAN [Counseling] superiority complex and it comes out as being very arrogant, very
Association. She is actively involved with the Philippine Judicial hostile, very aggressive and very angry. They also had (sic) a very
Academy, recently lecturing on the socio-demographic and low tolerance for frustrations. A lot of times they are involved in vices
psychological profile of families involved in domestic violence and like gambling, drinking and drugs. And they become violent. The
nullity cases. She was with the Davide Commission doing research batterer also usually comes from a dysfunctional family which over-
about Military Psychology. She has written a book entitled Energy pampers them and makes them feel entitled to do anything. Also,
Global Psychology (together with Drs. Allan Tan and Allan Bernardo). they see often how their parents abused each other so there is a lot
The Genosa case is the first time she has testified as an expert on of modeling of aggression in the family.
battered women as this is the first case of that nature. Dra. Dayan testified that there are a lot of reasons why a battered
Dra. Dayan testified that for the research she conducted, on the woman does not leave her husband: poverty, self-blame and guilt
socio-demographic and psychological profile of families involved in that she provoked the violence, the cycle itself which makes her hope
domestic violence, and nullity cases, she looked at about 500 cases her husband will change, the belief in her obligations to keep the
over a period of ten (10) years and discovered that there are lots of family intact at all costs for the sake of the children.
variables that cause all of this marital conflicts, from domestic xxxxxxxxx
violence to infidelity, to psychiatric disorder.
Dra. Dayan said that abused wives react differently to the violence:
some leave the house, or lock themselves in another room, or
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 70

sometimes try to fight back triggering physical violence on both of retirement from government service, he obtained the rank of
them. She said that in a normal marital relationship, abuses also Brigadier General. He obtained his medical degree from the
happen, but these are not consistent, not chronic, are not happening University of Santo Tomas. He was also a member of the World
day in [and] day out. In an abnormal marital relationship, the abuse Association of Military Surgeons; the Quezon City Medical Society;
occurs day in and day out, is long lasting and even would cause the Cagayan Medical Society; and the Philippine Association of
hospitalization on the victim and even death on the victim. Military Surgeons.
xxxxxxxxx He authored The Comparative Analysis of Nervous Breakdown in the
Dra. Dayan said that as a result of the battery of psychological tests Philippine Military Academy from the Period 1954 1978 which was
she administered, it was her opinion that Marivic fits the profile of a presented twice in international congresses. He also authored The
battered woman because inspite of her feeling of self-confidence Mental Health of the Armed Forces of the Philippines 2000, which
which we can see at times there are really feeling (sic) of loss, such was likewise published internationally and locally. He had a medical
feelings of humiliation which she sees herself as damaged and as a textbook published on the use of Prasepam on a Parke-Davis grant;
broken person. And at the same time she still has the imprint of all was the first to use Enanthate (siquiline), on an E.R. Squibb grant;
the abuses that she had experienced in the past. and he published the use of the drug Zopiclom in 1985-86.
Dr. Pajarillo explained that psychiatry deals with the functional
xxxxxxxxx
disorder of the mind and neurology deals with the ailment of the brain
Dra. Dayan said Marivic thought of herself as a loving wife and did and spinal cord enlarged. Psychology, on the other hand, is a
not even consider filing for nullity or legal separation inspite of the bachelor degree and a doctorate degree; while one has to finish
abuses. It was at the time of the tragedy that Marivic then thought of medicine to become a specialist in psychiatry.
herself as a victim.
Even only in his 7th year as a resident in V. Luna Medical Centre, Dr.
xxxxxxxxx Pajarillo had already encountered a suit involving violent family
19. On 9 February 2001, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, a physician, who has relations, and testified in a case in 1964. In the Armed Forces of the
since passed away, appeared and testified before RTC-Branch 35, Philippines, violent family disputes abound, and he has seen
Ormoc City. probably ten to twenty thousand cases. In those days, the primordial
intention of therapy was reconciliation. As a result of his experience
Dr. Pajarillo was a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry; a
with domestic violence cases, he became a consultant of the
Fellow of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry and a Fellow of the
Battered Woman Office in Quezon City under Atty. Nenita Deproza.
Philippine Psychiatry Association. He was in the practice of
psychiatry for thirty-eight (38) years. Prior to being in private practice, As such consultant, he had seen around forty (40) cases of severe
he was connected with the Veterans Memorial Medical Centre where domestic violence, where there is physical abuse: such as slapping,
he gained his training on psychiatry and neurology. After that, he was pushing, verbal abuse, battering and boxing a woman even to an
called to active duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, assigned unconscious state such that the woman is sometimes confined. The
to the V. Luna Medical Center for twenty six (26) years. Prior to his affliction of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder depends on the
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 71

vulnerability of the victim. Dr. Pajarillo said that if the victim is not xxxxxxxxx
very healthy, perhaps one episode of violence may induce the
Dr. Pajarillo said that a woman suffering post traumatic stress
disorder; if the psychological stamina and physiologic constitutional
disorder try to defend themselves, and primarily with knives. Usually
stamina of the victim is stronger, it will take more repetitive trauma to
pointed weapons or any weapon that is available in the immediate
precipitate the post-traumatic stress disorder and this x x x is very
surrounding or in a hospital x x x because that abound in the
dangerous.
household. He said a victim resorts to weapons when she has
In psychiatry, the post-traumatic stress disorder is incorporated under reached the lowest rock bottom of her life and there is no other
the anxiety neurosis or neurologic anxcietism. It is produced by recourse left on her but to act decisively.
overwhelming brutality, trauma.
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
Dr. Pajarillo testified that he met Marivic Genosa in his office in an
Dr. Pajarillo explained that with neurotic anxiety, the victim relives the interview he conducted for two (2) hours and seventeen (17) minutes.
beating or trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually being He used the psychological evaluation and social case studies as a
beaten at that time. She thinks of nothing but the suffering. help in forming his diagnosis. He came out with a Psychiatric Report,
dated 22 January 2001.
xxxxxxxxx

A woman who suffers battery has a tendency to become neurotic, her xxxxxxxxx
emotional tone is unstable, and she is irritable and restless. She On cross-examination by the private prosecutor, Dr. Pajarillo said
tends to become hard-headed and persistent. She has higher that at the time she killed her husband Marivicc mental condition was
sensitivity and her self-world is damaged. that she was re-experiencing the trauma. He said that we are trying
Dr. Pajarillo said that an abnormal family background relates to an to explain scientifically that the re-experiencing of the trauma is not
individuals illness, such as the deprivation of the continuous care and controlled by Marivic. It will just come in flashes and probably at that
love of the parents. As to the batterer, he normally internalizes what point in time that things happened when the re-experiencing of the
is around him within the environment. And it becomes his own trauma flashed in her mind. At the time he interviewed Marivic she
personality. He is very competitive; he is aiming high all the time; he was more subdued, she was not super alert anymore x x x she is
is so macho; he shows his strong faade but in it there are doubts in mentally stress (sic) because of the predicament she is involved.
himself and prone to act without thinking. xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx 20. No rebuttal evidence or testimony was presented by either the
Dr. Pajarillo emphasized that even though without the presence of private or the public prosecutor. Thus, in accord with the Resolution
the precipator (sic) or the one who administered the battering, that re- of this Honorable Court, the records of the partially re-opened trial
experiencing of the trauma occurred (sic) because the individual a quowere elevated.[9]
cannot control it. It will just come up in her mind or in his mind.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 72

Ruling of the Trial Court Acting on the Courts Resolution, the trial judge authorized the
examination of Marivic by two clinical psychologists, Drs. Natividad
Dayan[10] and Alfredo Pajarillo,[11] supposedly experts on domestic
Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave
violence. Their testimonies, along with their documentary evidence,
credence to the prosecution evidence that appellant had killed the
were then presented to and admitted by the lower court before finally
deceased while he was in bed sleeping. Further, the trial court
being submitted to this Court to form part of the records of the
appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery,
case.[12]
because Ben Genosa was supposedly defenseless when he was
killed -- lying in bed asleep when Marivic smashed him with a pipe at
the back of his head.
The Issues
The capital penalty having been imposed, the case was elevated to
this Court for automatic review.
Appellant assigns the following alleged errors of the trial court for this
Courts consideration:

Supervening Circumstances 1. The trial court gravely erred in promulgating an obviously hasty
decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-
defense.
On February 19, 2000, appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion
praying that this Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and 2. The trial court gravely erred in finding as a fact that Ben and
the reexamination of the cause of his death; (2) the examination of Marivic Genosa were legally married and that she was therefore
appellant by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine liable for parricide.
her state of mind at the time she had killed her spouse; and (3) the 3. The trial court gravely erred finding the cause of death to be by
inclusion of the said experts reports in the records of the case for beating with a pipe.
purposes of the automatic review or, in the alternative, a partial
4. The trial court gravely erred in ignoring and disregarding evidence
reopening of the case for the lower court to admit the experts
adduced from impartial and unbiased witnesses that Ben Genosa
testimonies.
was a drunk, a gambler, a womanizer and wife-beater; and further
On September 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution granting in gravely erred in concluding that Ben Genosa was a battered
part appellants Motion, remanding the case to the trial court for the husband.
reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the 5. The trial court gravely erred in not requiring testimony from the
battered woman syndrome plea; and requiring the lower court to children of Marivic Genosa.
report thereafter to this Court the proceedings taken as well as to
submit copies of the TSN and additional evidence, if any. 6. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that Marivics flight to
Manila and her subsequent apologies were indicia of guilt, instead of
a clear attempt to save the life of her unborn child.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 73

7. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that there was an event, we will now briefly dispose of these alleged errors of the trial
aggravating circumstance of treachery. court.
8. The trial court gravely erred in refusing to re-evaluate the First, we do not agree that the lower court promulgated an obviously
traditional elements in determining the existence of self-defense and hasty decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-
defense of foetus in this case, thereby erroneously convicting Marivic defense. We note that in his 17-page Decision, Judge Fortunito L.
Genosa of the crime of parricide and condemning her to the ultimate Madrona summarized the testimonies of both the prosecution and the
penalty of death.[13] defense witnesses and -- on the basis of those and of the
documentary evidence on record -- made his evaluation, findings and
In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1) whether
conclusions. He wrote a 3-page discourse assessing the testimony
appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2)
and the self-defense theory of the accused. While she, or even this
whether treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.
Court, may not agree with the trial judges conclusions, we cannot
peremptorily conclude, absent substantial evidence, that he failed to
reflect on the evidence presented.
The Courts Ruling
Neither do we find the appealed Decision to have been made in an
obviously hasty manner. The Information had been filed with the
The appeal is partly meritorious.
lower court on November 14, 1996. Thereafter, trial began and at
least 13 hearings were held for over a year. It took the trial judge
about two months from the conclusion of trial to promulgate his
Collateral Factual Issues
judgment. That he conducted the trial and resolved the case with
dispatch should not be taken against him, much less used to
The first six assigned errors raised by appellant are factual in nature, condemn him for being unduly hasty. If at all, the dispatch with which
if not collateral to the resolution of the principal issues. As he handled the case should be lauded. In any case, we find his
consistently held by this Court, the findings of the trial court on the actions in substantial compliance with his constitutional obligation.[15]
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to a high
Second, the lower court did not err in finding as a fact that Ben
degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence
Genosa and appellant had been legally married, despite the non-
of any showing that the trial judge gravely abused his discretion or
presentation of their marriage contract. In People v. Malabago,[16] this
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied material facts or
Court held:
circumstances of weight and substance that could affect the outcome
of the case.[14] The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with
the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the
In appellants first six assigned items, we find no grave abuse of
relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage
discretion, reversible error or misappreciation of material facts that
certificate. In the absence of a marriage certificate, however, oral
would reverse or modify the trial courts disposition of the case. In any
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 74

evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by the trial court the victim. Hence, his personal character, especially his past behavior,
if such proof is not objected to. did not constitute vital evidence at the time.

Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the Fifth, the trial court surely committed no error in not requiring
brother of appellants deceased spouse -- attested in court that Ben testimony from appellants children. As correctly elucidated by the
had been married to Marivic.[17] The defense raised no objection to solicitor general, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the
these testimonies. Moreover, during her direct examination, appellant direction and control of the public prosecutor, in whom lies the
herself made a judicial admission of her marriage to discretion to determine which witnesses and evidence are necessary
Ben.[18] Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admission is conclusive to present.[20] As the former further points out, neither the trial court
upon the party making it, except only when there is a showing that (1) nor the prosecution prevented appellant from presenting her children
the admission was made through a palpable mistake, or (2) no as witnesses. Thus, she cannot now fault the lower court for not
admission was in fact made.[19]Other than merely attacking the non- requiring them to testify.
presentation of the marriage contract, the defense offered no proof
Finally, merely collateral or corroborative is the matter of whether the
that the admission made by appellant in court as to the fact of her
flight of Marivic to Manila and her subsequent apologies to her
marriage to the deceased was made through a palpable mistake.
brother-in-law are indicia of her guilt or are attempts to save the life of
Third, under the circumstances of this case, the specific or direct her unborn child. Any reversible error as to the trial courts
cause of Bens death -- whether by a gunshot or by beating with a appreciation of these circumstances has little bearing on the final
pipe -- has no legal consequence. As the Court elucidated in its resolution of the case.
September 29, 2000 Resolution, [c]onsidering that the appellant has
admitted the fact of killing her husband and the acts of hitting his First Legal Issue:
nape with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the back of his head, Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus
the Court believes that exhumation is unnecessary, if not immaterial,
to determine which of said acts actually caused the victims death. Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability,
Determining which of these admitted acts caused the death is not invokes self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child. When the
dispositive of the guilt or defense of appellant. accused admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove
Fourth, we cannot fault the trial court for not fully appreciating evidence any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing
that Ben was a drunk, gambler, womanizer and wife-beater. Until this evidence.[21] Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-
case came to us for automatic review, appellant had not raised the defense (and similarly, defense of a stranger or third person) shifts
novel defense of battered woman syndrome, for which such evidence the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.[22]
may have been relevant. Her theory of self-defense was then the
crucial issue before the trial court. As will be discussed shortly, the legal
requisites of self-defense under prevailing jurisprudence ostensibly The Battered Woman Syndrome
appear inconsistent with the surrounding facts that led to the death of
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 75

In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the to her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the
battered woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish,
the concept has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of however, proves to be double-edged, because her placatory and
self-defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense.[23] By passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse
appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the her in the first place.
syndrome, foreign courts convey their understanding of the justifiably
However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to
fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and
placate him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical
controlled over a period of time.[24]
abuse worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control
A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly and the growing tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally. But the
in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer
concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some
any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to unpredictable point, the violence spirals out of control and leads to an
be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the acute battering incident.[29]
battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality,
abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems
she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.[25]
this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase,
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self- she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence.
esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so
sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes
tendency to accept responsibility for the batterers actions; and false that she cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only
hopes that the relationship will improve.[26] exacerbate her condition.

More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the
the so-called cycle of violence,[27] which has three phases: (1) the terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail.
tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be
tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.[28] rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger
physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that it is
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could
futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage
be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.
and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are
The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of
likely to get hurt.[30]
kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What
actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that,
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 76

The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute ATTY. TABUCANON
battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple
Q How did you describe your marriage with Ben Genosa?
experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show
a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that A In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the subsequent year
he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for he was cruel to me and a behavior of habitual drinker.
her forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other
Q You said that in the subsequent year of your marriage, your
hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the
husband was abusive to you and cruel. In what way was this abusive
battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the
and cruelty manifested to you?
better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real person
whom she loves. A He always provoke me in everything, he always slap me and
sometimes he pinned me down on the bed and sometimes beat me.
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the
emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, Q How many times did this happen?
she feels responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the
A Several times already.
chances of his reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help,
are very slim, especially if she remains with him. Generally, only after Q What did you do when these things happen to you?
she leaves him does he seek professional help as a way of getting
her back. Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she A I went away to my mother and I ran to my father and we separate
is most thoroughly tormented psychologically. each other.

The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a Q What was the action of Ben Genosa towards you leaving home?
battered womans psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are A He is following me, after that he sought after me.
indeed emotionally dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant
behavior, he for her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of Q What will happen when he follow you?
tension, violence and forgiveness, each partner may believe that it is A He said he changed, he asked for forgiveness and I was convinced
better to die than to be separated. Neither one may really feel and after that I go to him and he said sorry.
independent, capable of functioning without the other.[31]
Q During those times that you were the recipient of such cruelty and
History of Abuse abusive behavior by your husband, were you able to see a doctor?
in the Present Case
A Yes, sir.

Q Who are these doctors?


To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the defense
presented several witnesses. She herself described her heart- A The company physician, Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra.
rending experience as follows: Cerillo.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 77

xxxxxxxxx Q So, do you have a summary of those six (6) incidents which are
found in the chart of your clinic?
Q You said that you saw a doctor in relation to your injuries?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Who prepared the list of six (6) incidents, Doctor?
Q Who inflicted these injuries?
A I did.
A Of course my husband.
Q Will you please read the physical findings together with the dates
Q You mean Ben Genosa?
for the record.
A Yes, sir.
A 1. May 12, 1990 - physical findings are as follows: Hematoma (R)
xxxxxxxxx lower eyelid and redness of eye. Attending physician: Dr. Lucero;

[Court] /to the witness 2. March 10, 1992 - Contusion-Hematoma (L) lower arbital area, pain
and contusion (R) breast. Attending physician: Dr. Canora;
Q How frequent was the alleged cruelty that you said?
3. March 26, 1993 - Abrasion, Furuncle (L) Axilla;
A Everytime he got drunk.
4. August 1, 1994 - Pain, mastitis (L) breast, 2o to trauma. Attending
Q No, from the time that you said the cruelty or the infliction of injury
physician: Dr. Caing;
inflicted on your occurred, after your marriage, from that time on, how
frequent was the occurrence? 5. April 17, 1995 - Trauma, tenderness (R) Shoulder. Attending
physician: Dr. Canora; and
A Everytime he got drunk.
6. June 5, 1995 - Swelling Abrasion (L) leg, multiple contusion
Q Is it daily, weekly, monthly or how many times in a month or in a
Pregnancy. Attending physician: Dr. Canora.
week?
Q Among the findings, there were two (2) incidents wherein you were
A Three times a week.
the attending physician, is that correct?
Q Do you mean three times a week he would beat you?
A Yes, sir.
A Not necessarily that he would beat me but sometimes he will just
Q Did you actually physical examine the accused?
quarrel me. [32]
A Yes, sir.
Referring to his Out-Patient Chart[33] on Marivic Genosa at the
Philphos Hospital, Dr. Dino D. Caing bolstered her foregoing Q Now, going to your finding no. 3 where you were the one who
testimony on chronic battery in this manner: attended the patient. What do you mean by abrasion furuncle left
axilla?
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 78

A Abrasion is a skin wound usually when it comes in contact with A It was on November 6, 1995.
something rough substance if force is applied.
Q So, did you actually see the accused physically?
Q What is meant by furuncle axilla?
A Yes, sir.
A It is secondary of the light infection over the abrasion.
Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable Court,
Q What is meant by pain mastitis secondary to trauma? was the patient pregnant?

A So, in this 4th episode of physical injuries there is an inflammation A Yes, sir.
of left breast. So, [pain] meaning there is tenderness. When your
Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of pregnancy
breast is traumatized, there is tenderness pain.
was she?
Q So, these are objective physical injuries. Doctor?
A Eight (8) months pregnant.
xxxxxxxxx
Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy?
Q Were you able to talk with the patient?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an
Q What did she tell you? examination about her pregnancy or for some other findings?

A As a doctor-patient relationship, we need to know the cause of A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which
these injuries. And she told me that it was done to her by her complicates her pregnancy.
husband.
Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined?
Q You mean, Ben Genosa?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q For how many days?
xxxxxxxxx
A One day.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Where?
Q By the way Doctor, were you able to physical examine the accused
A At PHILPHOS Hospital.
sometime in the month of November, 1995 when this incident
happened? xxxxxxxxx

A As per record, yes.

Q What was the date?


CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 79

Q Lets go back to the clinical history of Marivic Genosa. You said that A Yes, if it is emotionally related and stressful it can cause increases
you were able to examine her personally on November 6, 1995 and in hypertension which is unfortunately does not response to the
she was 8 months pregnant. medication.

What is this all about? Q In November 6, 1995, the date of the incident, did you take the
blood pressure of the accused?
A Because she has this problem of tension headache secondary to
hypertension and I think I have a record here, also the same period A On November 6, 1995 consultation, the blood pressure was
from 1989 to 1995, she had a consultation for twenty-three (23) 180/120.
times.
Q Is this considered hypertension?
Q For what?
A Yes, sir, severe.
A Tension headache.
Q Considering that she was 8 months pregnant, you mean this is
Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that the dangerous level of blood pressure?
patient had hypertension?
A It was dangerous to the child or to the fetus. [34]
A The patient definitely had hypertension. It was refractory to our
Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of the
treatment. She does not response when the medication was given to
Genosas in Isabel, Leyte, testified that he had seen the couple
her, because tension headache is more or less stress related and
quarreling several times; and that on some occasions Marivic would
emotional in nature.
run to him with bruises, confiding that the injuries were inflicted upon
Q What did you deduce of tension headache when you said is her by Ben.[35]
emotional in nature?
Ecel Arano also testified[36] that for a number of times she had been
A From what I deduced as part of our physical examination of the asked by Marivic to sleep at the Genosa house, because the latter
patient is the family history in line of giving the root cause of what is feared that Ben would come home drunk and hurt her. On one
causing this disease. So, from the moment you ask to the patient all occasion that Ecel did sleep over, she was awakened about ten
comes from the domestic problem. oclock at night, because the couple were very noisy and I heard
something was broken like a vase. Then Marivic came running into
Q You mean problem in her household?
Ecels room and locked the door. Ben showed up by the window grill
A Probably. atop a chair, scaring them with a knife.

Q Can family trouble cause elevation of blood pressure, Doctor? On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again asked her
help -- this time to find Ben -- but they were unable to. They returned
to the Genosa home, where they found him already drunk. Again
afraid that he might hurt her, Marivic asked her to sleep at their
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 80

house. Seeing his state of drunkenness, Ecel hesitated; and when A Bilwang.
she heard the couple start arguing, she decided to leave.
Q Is this your house or you are renting?
On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben Genosa, at
A Renting.
least three other witnesses saw or heard the couple
quarreling.[37] Marivic relates in detail the following backdrop of the Q What time were you able to come back in your residence at
fateful night when life was snuffed out of him, showing in the process Bilwang?
a vivid picture of his cruelty towards her:
A I went back around almost 8:00 oclock.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q What happened when you arrived in your residence?
Q Please tell this Court, can you recall the incident in November 15,
A When I arrived home with my cousin Ecel whom I requested to
1995 in the evening?
sleep with me at that time because I had fears that he was again
A Whole morning and in the afternoon, I was in the office working drunk and I was worried that he would again beat me so I requested
then after office hours, I boarded the service bus and went to my cousin to sleep with me, but she resisted because she had fears
Bilwang. When I reached Bilwang, I immediately asked my son, that the same thing will happen again last year.
where was his father, then my second child said, he was not home
Q Who was this cousin of yours who you requested to sleep with
yet. I was worried because that was payday, I was anticipating that
you?
he was gambling. So while waiting for him, my eldest son arrived
from school, I prepared dinner for my children. A Ecel Arao, the one who testified.
Q This is evening of November 15, 1995? Q Did Ecel sleep with you in your house on that evening?
A Yes, sir. A No, because she expressed fears, she said her father would not
allow her because of Ben.
Q What time did Ben Genosa arrive?
Q During this period November 15, 1995, were you pregnant?
A When he arrived, I was not there, I was in Isabel looking for him.
A Yes, 8 months.
Q So when he arrived you were in Isabel looking for him?
Q How advance was your pregnancy?
A Yes, sir.
A Eight (8) months.
Q Did you come back to your house?
Q Was the baby subsequently born?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q By the way, where was your conjugal residence situated this time?
Q Whats the name of the baby you were carrying at that time?
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 81

A Marie Bianca. not answering his challenge, so he went to the kitchen and [got] a
bolo and cut the antenna wire to stop me from watching television.
Q What time were you able to meet personally your husband?
Q What did he do with the bolo?
A Yes, sir.
A He cut the antenna wire to keep me from watching T.V.
Q What time?
Q What else happened after he cut the wire?
A When I arrived home, he was there already in his usual behavior.
A He switch off the light and the children were shouting because they
Q Will you tell this Court what was his disposition?
were scared and he was already holding the bolo.
A He was drunk again, he was yelling in his usual unruly behavior.
Q How do you described this bolo?
Q What was he yelling all about?
A 1 1/2 feet.
A His usual attitude when he got drunk.
Q What was the bolo used for usually?
Q You said that when you arrived, he was drunk and yelling at you?
A For chopping meat.
What else did he do if any?
Q You said the children were scared, what else happened as Ben
A He is nagging at me for following him and he dared me to quarrel
was carrying that bolo?
him.
A He was about to attack me so I run to the room.
Q What was the cause of his nagging or quarreling at you if you
know? Q What do you mean that he was about to attack you?

A He was angry at me because I was following x x x him, looking for A When I attempt to run he held my hands and he whirled me and I
him. I was just worried he might be overly drunk and he would beat fell to the bedside.
me again.
Q So when he whirled you, what happened to you?
Q You said that he was yelling at you, what else, did he do to you if
A I screamed for help and then he left.
any?
Q You said earlier that he whirled you and you fell on the bedside?
A He was nagging at me at that time and I just ignore him because I
want to avoid trouble for fear that he will beat me again. Perhaps he A Yes, sir.
was disappointed because I just ignore him of his provocation and he
Q You screamed for help and he left, do you know where he was
switch off the light and I said to him, why did you switch off the light
going?
when the children were there. At that time I was also attending to my
children who were doing their assignments. He was angry with me for A Outside perhaps to drink more.
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 82

Q When he left what did you do in that particular time? (At this juncture the witness started crying).

A I packed all his clothes. ATTY. TABUCANON:

Q What was your reason in packing his clothes? Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?

A I wanted him to leave us. A Yes, sir.

Q During this time, where were your children, what were their Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
reactions?
A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the
A After a couple of hours, he went back again and he got angry with drawer but he could not open it because he did not have the key then
me for packing his clothes, then he dragged me again of the he pulled his wallet which contained a blade about 3 inches long and
bedroom holding my neck. I was aware that he was going to kill me and I smashed his arm and
then the wallet and the blade fell. The one he used to open the
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged
drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long, and when he was about
you? How did he drag you?
to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the
COURT INTERPRETER: other room, and on that very moment everything on my mind was to
pity on myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed
same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit.
forcibly in her front neck)
COURT INTERPRETER:
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
ATTY. TABUCANON:
xxxxxxxxx
Q Where did he bring you?
ATTY. TABUCANON:
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he
kept on shouting at me that you might as well be killed so there will Q Talking of drawer, is this drawer outside your room?
be nobody to nag me.
A Outside.
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
Q In what part of the house?
A Yes, sir.
A Dining.
Q What is there in the drawer?
Q Where were the children during that time?
A I was aware that it was a gun.
A My children were already asleep.
COURT INTERPRETER:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 83

Q You mean they were inside the room? husband was involved in a lot of vices, going out with barkadas,
drinking, even womanizing being involved in cockfight and going
A Yes, sir.
home very angry and which will trigger a lot of physical abuse. She
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please also had the experience a lot of taunting from the husband for the
describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it look like? reason that the husband even accused her of infidelity, the husband
was saying that the child she was carrying was not his own. So she
A Three (3) inches long and 1/2 inch wide.
was very angry, she was at the same time very depressed because
Q Is it a flexible blade? she was also aware, almost like living in purgatory or even hell when
it was happening day in and day out. [39]
A Its a cutter.
In cross-examining Dra. Dayan, the public prosecutor not merely
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
elicited, but wittingly or unwittingly put forward, additional supporting
A Yes, because he once used it to me. evidence as shown below:

Q How did he do it? Q In your first encounter with the appellant in this case in 1999,
where you talked to her about three hours, what was the most
A He wanted to cut my throat. relevant information did you gather?
Q With the same blade? A The most relevant information was the tragedy that happened. The
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me. [38] most important information were escalating abuses that she had
experienced during her marital life.
In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to testify as
an expert witness to assist it in understanding the psyche of a Q Before you met her in 1999 for three hours, we presume that you
battered person. She had met with Marivic Genosa for five sessions already knew of the facts of the case or at least you have substantial
totaling about seventeen hours. Based on their talks, the former knowledge of the facts of the case?
briefly related the latters ordeal to the court a quo as follows: A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not know whether I can
Q: What can you say, that you found Marivic as a battered wife? consider them as substantial.
Could you in laymans term describe to this Court what her life was xxxxxxxxx
like as said to you?
Q Did you gather an information from Marivic that on the side of her
A: What I remember happened then was it was more than ten years, husband they were fond of battering their wives?
that she was suffering emotional anguish. There were a lot of
instances of abuses, to emotional abuse, to verbal abuse and to A I also heard that from her?
physical abuse. The husband had a very meager income, she was
Q You heard that from her?
the one who was practically the bread earner of the family. The
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 84

A Yes, sir. A Sir, it is an extreme form of battering. Yes.[40]

Q Did you ask for a complete example who are the relatives of her Parenthetically, the credibility of appellant was demonstrated as
husband that were fond of battering their wives? follows:

A What I remember that there were brothers of her husband who are Q And you also said that you administered [the] objective personality
also battering their wives. test, what x x x [is this] all about?

Q Did she not inform you that there was an instance that she stayed A The objective personality test is the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
in a hotel in Ormoc where her husband followed her and battered Inventory. The purpose of that test is to find out about the lying
[her] several times in that room? prone[ne]ss of the person.

A She told me about that. Q What do you mean by that?

Q Did she inform you in what hotel in Ormoc? A Meaning, am I dealing with a client who is telling me the truth, or is
she someone who can exaggerate or x x x [will] tell a lie[?]
A Sir, I could not remember but I was told that she was battered in
that room. Q And what did you discover on the basis of this objective personality
test?
Q Several times in that room?
A She was a person who passed the honesty test. Meaning she is a
A Yes, sir. What I remember was that there is no problem about
person that I can trust. That the data that Im gathering from her are
being battered, it really happened.
the truth.[41]
Q Being an expert witness, our jurisprudence is not complete on
The other expert witness presented by the defense, Dr. Alfredo
saying this matter. I think that is the first time that we have this in the
Pajarillo, testified on his Psychiatric Report,[42] which was based on
Philippines, what is your opinion?
his interview and examination of Marivic Genosa. The Report said
A Sir, my opinion is, she is really a battered wife and in this kind that during the first three years of her marriage to Ben, everything
happened, it was really a self-defense. I also believe that there had looked good -- the atmosphere was fine, normal and happy -- until
been provocation and I also believe that she became a disordered Ben started to be attracted to other girls and was also enticed in[to]
person. She had to suffer anxiety reaction because of all the gambling[,] especially cockfighting. x x x. At the same time Ben was
battering that happened and so she became an abnormal person often joining his barkada in drinking sprees.
who had lost shes not during the time and that is why it happened
The drinking sprees of Ben greatly changed the attitude he showed
because of all the physical battering, emotional battering, all the
toward his family, particularly to his wife. The Report continued: At
psychological abuses that she had experienced from her husband.
first, it was verbal and emotional abuses but as time passed, he
Q I do believe that she is a battered wife. Was she extremely became physically abusive. Marivic claimed that the viciousness of
battered? her husband was progressive every time he got drunk. It was a
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 85

painful ordeal Marivic had to anticipate whenever she suspected that the average person confronted with the so-called battered wife
her husband went for a drinking [spree]. They had been married for syndrome.[44]
twelve years[;] and practically more than eight years, she was
To understand the syndrome properly, however, ones viewpoint
battered and maltreated relentlessly and mercilessly by her husband
should not be drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person.
whenever he was drunk.
What goes on in the mind of a person who has been subjected to
Marivic sought the help of her mother-in-law, but her efforts were in repeated, severe beatings may not be consistent with -- nay,
vain. Further quoting from the Report, [s]he also sought the advice comprehensible to -- those who have not been through a similar
and help of close relatives and well-meaning friends in spite of her experience. Expert opinion is essential to clarify and refute common
feeling ashamed of what was happening to her. But incessant myths and misconceptions about battered women.[45]
battering became more and more frequent and more severe. x x x.[43]
The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her
From the totality of evidence presented, there is indeed no doubt in research on domestic violence, has had a significant impact in the
the Courts mind that Appellant Marivic Genosa was a severely United States and the United Kingdom on the treatment and
abused person. prosecution of cases, in which a battered woman is charged with the
killing of her violent partner. The psychologist explains that the
cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon the battered woman
Effect of Battery on Appellant immobilizes the latters ability to act decisively in her own interests,
making her feel trapped in the relationship with no means of
escape.[46] In her years of research, Dr. Walker found that the abuse
Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the often escalates at the point of separation and battered women are in
abused woman, her state of mind metamorphoses. In determining greater danger of dying then.[47]
her state of mind, we cannot rely merely on the judgment of an
ordinary, reasonable person who is evaluating the events Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that the
immediately surrounding the incident. A Canadian court has aptly battered woman usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has x
pointed out that expert evidence on the psychological effect of x x self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x [W]hen the
battering on wives and common law partners are both relevant and violence would happen, they usually think that they provoke[d] it, that
necessary. How can the mental state of the appellant be appreciated they were the one[s] who precipitated the violence[; that] they
without it? The average member of the public may ask: Why would a provoke[d] their spouse to be physically, verbally and even sexually
woman put up with this kind of treatment? Why should she continue abusive to them.[48]
to live with such a man? How could she love a partner who beat her
According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a battered
to the point of requiring hospitalization? We would expect the woman
woman does not readily leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self-
to pack her bags and go. Where is her self-respect? Why does she
blame and guilt arising from the latters belief that she provoked the
not cut loose and make a new life for herself? Such is the reaction of
violence, that she has an obligation to keep the family intact at all
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 86

cost for the sake of their children, and that she is the only hope for own safety; they believe that nothing they or anyone else does will
her spouse to change.[49] alter their terrible circumstances.[54]

The testimony of another expert witness, Dr. Pajarillo, is also helpful. Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow
He had previously testified in suits involving violent family relations, responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes
having evaluated probably ten to twenty thousand violent family that he is capable of killing her, and that there is no
disputes within the Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein such escape.[55] Battered women feel unsafe, suffer from pervasive
cases abounded. As a result of his experience with domestic violence anxiety, and usually fail to leave the relationship.[56] Unless a shelter
cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office in is available, she stays with her husband, not only because she
Quezon City. As such, he got involved in about forty (40) cases of typically lacks a means of self-support, but also because she fears
severe domestic violence, in which the physical abuse on the woman that if she leaves she would be found and hurt even more.[57]
would sometimes even lead to her loss of consciousness.[50]
In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records for specific
Dr. Pajarillo explained that overwhelming brutality, trauma could evidence establishing that appellant, due to the repeated abuse she
result in posttraumatic stress disorder, a form of anxiety neurosis or had suffered from her spouse over a long period of time, became
neurologic anxietism.[51] After being repeatedly and severely abused, afflicted with the battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to
battered persons may believe that they are essentially helpless, find sufficient evidence that would support such a conclusion. More
lacking power to change their situation. x x x [A]cute battering specifically, we failed to find ample evidence that would confirm the
incidents can have the effect of stimulating the development of presence of the essential characteristics of BWS.
coping responses to the trauma at the expense of the victims ability
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of
to muster an active response to try to escape further trauma.
violence supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and
Furthermore, x x x the victim ceases to believe that anything she can
Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents. In
do will have a predictable positive effect.[52]
relating to the court a quo how the fatal incident that led to the death
A study[53] conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the of Ben started, Marivic perfectly described the tension-building phase
University of Pennsylvania, found that even if a person has control of the cycle. She was able to explain in adequate detail the typical
over a situation, but believes that she does not, she will be more characteristics of this stage. However, that single incident does not
likely to respond to that situation with coping responses rather than prove the existence of the syndrome. In other words, she failed to
trying to escape. He said that it was the cognitive aspect -- the prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had
individuals thoughts -- that proved all-important. He referred to this gone through a similar pattern.
phenomenon as learned helplessness. [T]he truth or facts of a
How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build up
situation turn out to be less important than the individuals set of
prior to acute battering? How did Marivic normally respond to Bens
beliefs or perceptions concerning the situation. Battered women dont
relatively minor abuses? What means did she employ to try to
attempt to leave the battering situation, even when it may seem to
outsiders that escape is possible, because they cannot predict their
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 87

prevent the situation from developing into the next (more violent) BWS as Self-Defense
stage?

Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not
phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive
away to her mothers or fathers house;[58] that Ben would seek her partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-
out, ask for her forgiveness and promise to change; and that defense.[59]
believing his words, she would return to their common abode.
From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons further
Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent incidents between her that crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered
and her spouse? Did she believe that she was the only hope for Ben woman at the time of the offense[60] -- she must have actually feared
to reform? And that she was the sole support of his emotional imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to
stability and well-being? Conversely, how dependent was she on kill him in order to save her life.
him? Did she feel helpless and trapped in their relationship? Did both
Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who
of them regard death as preferable to separation?
resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on ones life; and the
In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself her factual peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely
experiences and thoughts that would clearly and fully demonstrate imaginary.[61] Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides the following
the essential characteristics of the syndrome. requisites and effect of self-defense:[62]

The Court appreciates the ratiocinations given by the expert Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not incur any
witnesses for the defense. Indeed, they were able to explain fully, criminal liability:
albeit merely theoretically and scientifically, how the personality of
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that
the battered woman usually evolved or deteriorated as a result of
the following circumstances concur;
repeated and severe beatings inflicted upon her by her partner or
spouse. They corroborated each others testimonies, which were First. Unlawful aggression;
culled from their numerous studies of hundreds of actual Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
cases. However, they failed to present in court the factual repel it;
experiences and thoughts that appellant had related to them -- if at all Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
-- based on which they concluded that she had BWS. defending himself.

We emphasize that in criminal cases, all the elements of a modifying Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-
circumstance must be proven in order to be appreciated. To repeat, defense.[63] It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack --
the records lack supporting evidence that would establish all the or an imminent danger thereof -- on the life or safety of a
essentials of the battered woman syndrome as manifested person.[64] In the present case, however, according to the testimony
specifically in the case of the Genosas. of Marivic herself, there was a sufficient time interval between the
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 88

unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. She had it proper to evaluate and appreciate in her favor circumstances that
already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape mitigate her criminal liability. It is a hornbook doctrine that an appeal
to their childrens bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased in a criminal case opens it wholly for review on any issue, including
his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the that which has not been raised by the parties.[69]
danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a
From several psychological tests she had administered to Marivic,
position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety.
Dra. Dayan, in her Psychological Evaluation Report dated November
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their 29, 2000, opined as follows:
childrens bedroom -- and based on past violent incidents, there was
This is a classic case of a Battered Woman Syndrome. The repeated
a great probability that he would still have pursued her and inflicted
battering Marivic experienced with her husband constitutes a form of
graver harm -- then, the imminence of the real threat upon her life
[cumulative] provocation which broke down her psychological
would not have ceased yet. Where the brutalized person is already
resistance and natural self-control. It is very clear that she developed
suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical assault at the
heightened sensitivity to sight of impending danger her husband
time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually
posed continuously. Marivic truly experienced at the hands of her
have a predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an
abuser husband a state of psychological paralysis which can only be
obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life would amount
ended by an act of violence on her part. [70]
to sentencing her to murder by installment.[65] Still, impending danger
(based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) Dr. Pajarillo corroborates the findings of Dra. Dayan. He explained
prior to the defendants use of deadly force must be shown. that the effect of repetitious pain taking, repetitious battering, [and]
Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required repetitious maltreatment as well as the severity and the prolonged
imminence of danger.[66] Considering such circumstances and the administration of the battering is posttraumatic stress
existence of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated. [71]
disorder. Expounding thereon, he said:

We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not Q What causes the trauma, Mr. Witness?
warrant self-defense.[67] In the absence of such aggression, there can
A What causes the trauma is probably the repetitious battering.
be no self-defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the
Second, the severity of the battering. Third, the prolonged
victim.[68] Thus, Marivics killing of Ben was not completely justified
administration of battering or the prolonged commission of the
under the circumstances.
battering and the psychological and constitutional stamina of the
victim and another one is the public and social support available to
the victim. If nobody is interceding, the more she will go to that
Mitigating Circumstances Present
disorder....

xxxxxxxxx
In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did not raise any
other modifying circumstances that would alter her penalty, we deem
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 89

Q You referred a while ago to severity. What are the qualifications in how you get neurosis from neurotic personality of these cases of
terms of severity of the postraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Pajarillo? post[t]raumatic stress disorder. [72]

A The severity is the most severe continuously to trig[g]er this Answering the questions propounded by the trial judge, the expert
post[t]raumatic stress disorder is injury to the head, banging of the witness clarified further:
head like that. It is usually the very very severe stimulus that
Q But just the same[,] neurosis especially on battered woman
precipitate this post[t]raumatic stress disorder. Others are suffocating
syndrome x x x affects x x x his or her mental capacity?
the victim like holding a pillow on the face, strangulating the
individual, suffocating the individual, and boxing the individual. In this A Yes, your Honor.
situation therefore, the victim is heightened to painful stimulus, like
Q As you were saying[,] it x x x obfuscated her rationality?
for example she is pregnant, she is very susceptible because the
woman will not only protect herself, she is also to protect the fetus. A Of course obfuscated.[73]
So the anxiety is heightened to the end [sic] degree.
In sum, the cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted
Q But in terms of the gravity of the disorder, Mr. Witness, how do you upon appellant resulted in cumulative provocation which broke down
classify? her psychological resistance and natural self-control, psychological
paralysis, and difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory.
A We classify the disorder as [acute], or chronic or delayed or
[a]typical. Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such
manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the
Q Can you please describe this pre[-]classification you called delayed
exercise by appellant of her will power without, however, depriving
or [atypical]?
her of consciousness of her acts. There was, thus, a resulting
A The acute is the one that usually require only one battering and the diminution of her freedom of action, intelligence or intent. Pursuant to
individual will manifest now a severe emotional instability, higher paragraphs 9[74] and 10[75] of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code,
irritability remorse, restlessness, and fear and probably in most this circumstance should be taken in her favor and considered as a
[acute] cases the first thing will be happened to the individual will be mitigating factor. [76]
thinking of suicide.
In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating
Q And in chronic cases, Mr. Witness? circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to
have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. It has been held
A The chronic cases is this repetitious battering, repetitious
that this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a
maltreatment, any prolonged, it is longer than six (6) months. The
result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust
[acute] is only the first day to six (6) months. After this six (6) months
or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
you become chronic. It is stated in the book specifically that after six
overcome reason.[77] To appreciate this circumstance, the following
(6) months is chronic. The [a]typical one is the repetitious battering
requisites should concur: (1) there is an act, both unlawful and
but the individual who is abnormal and then become normal. This is
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 90

sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable paralysis as well as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the
length of time, during which the accused might recover her normal same set of facts.
equanimity.[78]
On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical
Here, an acute battering incident, wherein Ben Genosa was the nature and the severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse
unlawful aggressor, preceded his being killed by Marivic. He had upon appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a period of time
further threatened to kill her while dragging her by the neck towards a resulted in her psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an
cabinet in which he had kept a gun. It should also be recalled that illness diminishing the exercise of her will power without depriving her
she was eight months pregnant at the time. The attempt on her life of consciousness of her acts.
was likewise on that of her fetus.[79] His abusive and violent acts, an
The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the
aggression which was directed at the lives of both Marivic and her
violent aggression he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the
unborn child, naturally produced passion and obfuscation overcoming
incident occurred when she was eight months pregnant with their
her reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a separate room,
child was deemed by her as an attempt not only on her life, but
her emotional and mental state continued. According to her, she felt
likewise on that of their unborn child. Such perception naturally
her blood pressure rise; she was filled with feelings of self-pity and of
produced passion and obfuscation on her part.
fear that she and her baby were about to die. In a fit of indignation,
she pried open the cabinet drawer where Ben kept a gun, then she
Second Legal Issue:
took the weapon and used it to shoot him.
Treachery
The confluence of these events brings us to the conclusion that there
was no considerable period of time within which Marivic could have There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against
recovered her normal equanimity. Helpful is Dr. Pajarillos persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution
testimony[80] that with neurotic anxiety -- a psychological effect on a thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the
victim of overwhelming brutality [or] trauma -- the victim relives the offended party might make.[81] In order to qualify an act as
beating or trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually being treacherous, the circumstances invoked must be proven as
beaten at the time. She cannot control re-experiencing the whole indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere
thing, the most vicious and the trauma that she suffered. She thinks inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of
of nothing but the suffering. Such reliving which is beyond the control evidence.[82] Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery
of a person under similar circumstances, must have been what must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.[83]
Marivic experienced during the brief time interval and prevented her
from recovering her normal equanimity. Accordingly, she should Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial court
further be credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and imposed the penalty of death upon appellant. It inferred this
obfuscation. qualifying circumstances merely from the fact that the lifeless body of
Ben had been found lying in bed with an open, depressed, circular
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 91

fracture located at the back of his head. As to exactly how and when A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the
he had been fatally attacked, however, the prosecution failed to drawer but he could not open it because he did not have the key then
establish indubitably. Only the following testimony of appellant leads he pulled his wallet which contained a blade about 3 inches long and
us to the events surrounding his death: I was aware that he was going to kill me and I smashed his arm and
then the wallet and the blade fell. The one he used to open the
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged
drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long, and when he was about
you? How did he drag you?
to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the
COURT: other room, and on that very moment everything on my mind was to
pity on myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed
same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit.
forcibly in her front neck)
COURT INTERPRETER
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
ATTY. TABUCANON:
xxxxxxxxx
Q Where did he bring you?
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he
describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
kept on shouting at me that you might as well be killed so there will
be nobody to nag me A Three (3) inches long and inch wide.

Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer? Q It is a flexible blade?

A Yes, sir. A Its a cutter.

Q What is there in the drawer? Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?

A I was aware that it was a gun. A Yes, because he once used it to me.

COURT INTERPRETER Q How did he do it?

(At this juncture the witness started crying) A He wanted to cut my throat.

ATTY. TABUCANON: Q With the same blade?

Q Were you actually brought to the drawer? A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.

A Yes, sir. xxxxxxxxx

Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer? ATTY. TABUCANON:
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 92

Q You said that this blade fell from his grip, is it correct? the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel,
treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance,
A Yes, because I smashed him.
because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to
Q What happened? have anticipated aggression from the assailant.[85]

A Ben tried to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I pick-up the pipe and Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault
I smashed him and I ran to the other room. adopted by the aggressor must have been consciously and
deliberately chosen for the specific purpose of accomplishing the
Q What else happened?
unlawful act without risk from any defense that might be put up by the
A When I was in the other room, I felt the same thing like what party attacked.[86] There is no showing, though, that the present
happened before when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was appellant intentionally chose a specific means of successfully
about to vomit. I know my blood pressure was raised. I was attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory
frightened I was about to die because of my blood pressure. act that he might make. To the contrary, it appears that the thought of
using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment when
COURT INTERPRETER:
she decided to kill her batterer-spouse. In the absence of any
(Upon the answer of the witness getting the pipe and smashed him, convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the
the witness at the same time pointed at the back of her neck or the method by which she committed the crime in order to ensure its
nape). execution, this Court resolves the doubt in her favor.[87]

ATTY. TABUCANON:

Q You said you went to the room, what else happened? Proper Penalty

A Considering all the physical sufferings that Ive been through with
him, I took pity on myself and I felt I was about to die also because of The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised Penal
my blood pressure and the baby, so I got that gun and I shot him. Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since two mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance have been found to
COURT
have attended the commission of the offense, the penalty shall be
/to Atty. Tabucanon lowered by one (1) degree, pursuant to Article 64 of paragraph 5[88] of
the same Code.[89] The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
Q You shot him?
period is imposable, considering that two mitigating circumstances
A Yes, I distorted the drawer.[84] are to be taken into account in reducing the penalty by one degree,
and no other modifying circumstances were shown to have attended
The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of the commission of the offense.[90] Under the Indeterminate Sentence
treachery. There is no showing of the victims position relative to Law, the minimum of the penalty shall be within the range of that
appellants at the time of the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 93

which is next lower in degree -- prision mayor -- and the maximum The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense
shall be within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal. arising from the battered woman syndrome. We now sum up our
main points. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must
Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, we deem it just
be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes
and proper to impose the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
between the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final
period, or six (6) years and one (1) day in prison as minimum;
acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, or 14 years 8 months and
have produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear of an
1 day as maximum. Noting that appellant has already served the
imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she
minimum period, she may now apply for and be released from
needed to use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the
detention on parole.[91]
killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not necessarily
immediate and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the
history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken
Epilogue
altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-
defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not
Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman all of these elements were duly established.
syndrome was neither easy nor simple to analyze and recognize vis-- WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for
vis the given set of facts in the present case. The Court agonized on parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2)
how to apply the theory as a modern-day reality. It took great effort mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending
beyond the normal manner in which decisions are made -- on the her commission of the offense, her penalty is REDUCED to six (6)
basis of existing law and jurisprudence applicable to the proven facts. years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8
To give a just and proper resolution of the case, it endeavored to take months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
a good look at studies conducted here and abroad in order to
understand the intricacies of the syndrome and the distinct Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum
personality of the chronically abused person. Certainly, the Court has penalty hereby imposed upon her, the director of the Bureau
learned much. And definitely, the solicitor general and appellants of Corrections may immediately RELEASE her from custody upon
counsel, Atty. Katrina Legarda, have helped it in such learning due determination that she is eligible for parole, unless she is being
process. held for some other lawful cause. Costs de oficio.

While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we can SO ORDERED.
only work within the limits of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We
cannot make or invent them. Neither can we amend the Revised
CASE DIGEST: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981
Penal Code. Only Congress, in its wisdom, may do so.
Title: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981
CRIM WEEK 4 |APOLINAR| BANCE | GARCIA | ROMINA 94

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in
of the Revised Penal Code the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from
her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in
Facts: order to save her life, and; (c) At the time of the killing, the batterer
must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual –
Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and grave harm to the accused based on the history of violence
wounded his husband which ultimately led to his death. According to perpetuated by the former against the latter.
the appellant, she did not provoke her husband when she got home
that night and it was her husband who began the provocation. The For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating
appellant said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her circumstance because the quarrel or argument that preceded the
and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. killing must have forewarned the victim of the assailant’s aggression.

The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave
her husband at least five times, but that Ben would always follow her
and they would reconcile. The appellant said that the reason why
Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he
was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The appellant,
after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to be suffering
from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-
defense admitted the killing of her husband. She was found guilty of
the crime of parricide, with the aggravating circumstance of
treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.
(2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

Held:

For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all
the elements of self-defense arising from battered woman syndrome,
to wit: (a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven
to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the
appellant and her intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering