People v Melchor Real

G.R. No. 93436, March 24 1995

Quiason. J.

FACTS

 In the public market, appellant and Corpuz, both vendors, engaged in a heated argument over
the right to use the market table to display their fish
o Mayor tried to pacify them, so the two kept their peace
 But after a while Corpuz raised his voice again and said something to appellant
 When Corpuz kept on walking to and fro near the disputed table, appellant started to sharpen
his bolo while murmuring to himself.
 Once Corpuz turned around with his back towards the appellant, appellant hacked him on the
nape.
o When asked by his wife as to who hacked him, he answered “Melchor Real.” A police
officer, who went to the clinic, took Corpuz’s dying declaration that it was appellant who
stabbed him
 Corpus died 2 days later
 Appellant admitted hacking Corpuz but claimed that he did so out of humiliation and anger
when Corpuz threw his fish in the presence of so many people.
 Information for murder was filed, with evident premeditation and treachery as alleged
aggravating circumstances
o That the accused is a recidivist, having been convicted by MTC in the ff:
 Ill-treatment by deed – July 6 1965
 Grave threats – Nov 25 1968
 RTC found appellant guilty of murder, sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua
 Appellant argues before SC that the crime committed was only homicide and not murder, and
that he is entitled to 2 mitigating circumstances: passion and obfuscation, and vindication of a
grave offense.

ISSUES
WON the offense committed was homicide? Yes, homicide.

 Offense committed was homicide.

 He is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether he acted with alevosia when he attacked
the victim
o Rule: a sudden attack by assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such
mode of attach was cooly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of
depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat.
o Rule does not apply however where the attack was not preconceived and deliberately
adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of accused because
of the provocative act of the victim
 More so where the assault upon the victim was preceded by a heated exchange
of words between him and the accused
 o CAB: assault came in the course of an altercation and after appellant had sharpened his
bolo in the full view of the victim
 Appellant’s act of sharpening his bolo can be interpreted as an attempt to
frighten the victim so the latter would leave him alone
o Suddenness of the attack does not, by itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia
where the decision to attack was made peremptorily and the victim’s helpless position
was accidental

WON appellant is entitled to 2 mitigating circumstances? No. Only one.

 Appellant also claims that he is entitled to 2 mitigating circumstances: vindication of a grave

offense, and passion and obfuscation
o These 2 cannot be applied at the same time if they arise from the same facts or motive
o If appellant attacked his victim in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he
cannot successfully claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and
obfuscation. At most, only one of two circumstances could be considered in appellant’s
favor
o Act of victim in berating and humiliating appellant was enough to produce passion and
obfuscation considering that the incident happened in a market place within full view
and within hearing distance of many people

WON the attendant aggravating circumstance was reiteracion? No. Recidivism.

 TC held and Solgen agreed that the attendant aggravating circumstance was reiteracion. They
were wrong.
 In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of RPC.
 In reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished previously for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
o Unlike in recidivism, the offender in reiteracion commits a crime different in kind from
that for which he was previously tried and convicted.
 CAB: Appellant was previously convicted of ill-treatment by deed (Title 8) and grave threats
(Title 9). He was convicted in the instant criminal case of homicide (Title 8). Since homicide and
ill-treatment by deed fall under Title 8, the aggravating circumstance to be appreciated is
recidivism rather than reiteracion.
 There’s no reiteracion because that circumstance requires that the previous offenses should not
be embraced in the same title of the Code (here, ill-treatment by deed and homicide are
embraced in the same title, Title 8)
o While grave threats fall in a title (Title 9) different from homicide (Title 8), still
reiteracion cannot be appreciated because such aggravating circumstance requires that
if there is only one prior offense, that offense must be punishable by an equal or greater
 penalty than the one for which accused has been convicted (penalty for grave threats is
in Art 2821 , while penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal)
o Likewise, prosecution has to prove that the offender has been punished for the previous
offense. There’s no evidence presented by prosecution to that effect.

Dispositive: appellant convicted of the crime of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
10 yrs of prison mayor as minimum to 17 yrs and 4 mos of reclusion temporal as maximum

1 Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of
any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall
have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall
have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be
imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a
condition