ABELLA, Ma.

Kiana | AGUILAR, Yna Marei | ARCILLA, Ericka Anne

TOPIC: Article 7 section 19Classes of Mitigating CASE TITLE: Torres V GonzalesUS VS. Hicks
Circumstances; Passion & Obfuscation; Article 13 (6) of the
Revised Penal Code
DATE: July 23, 1987September 23, 1909 GR NO.: 1384894971

DOCTRINE:
 Revocation of pardonLOSS OF REASON AND SELF-CONTROL. The causes which produce in the mind loss of reason and self-
control, and which lessen criminal responsibility, are those which originate from lawful sentiments, not such as arise from vicious,
unworthy, and immoral passions; therefore, in the present case, it is not proper to consider that mitigating circumstance 7 of
Aarticle 9 of the Penal Code was present.

FACTS:
• Petitioner was charged with estafa sometime before 1979
• On 18 April 1979, a conditional pardon was granted to the petitioner by the President of the Philippines on condition that
petitioner would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should this condition be violated, he will be proceeded
against in the manner prescribed by law." Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently released from confinement.
• On May 21, 1986 his pardon was recommended to be revoked because he was charged again with estafa along with other
crimes, thus violating the terms of his pardon. These cases were still pending in the Appellate Court.
• On 4 June 1986, the respondent Minister of Justice wrote to the President of the Philippines informing her of the Resolution
of the Board recommending cancellation of the conditional pardon previously granted to petitioner.
• On 8 September 1986, the President cancelled the conditional pardon of the petitioner.
• On 10 October 1986, the respondent Minister of Justice issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest and
Recommitment against petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired
portion of his sentence.Accused Augustus Hicks and deceased Agustinal Sola illicitly lived together for five years.
Trouble arose between Augustus and Agustinal causing the latter to quit living with the formerthe former’s house.
Agustinal, separating from Augustus, lived with her brother-in-law, Lues Corrales.
Agustinal contracted new relations with Corporal Wallace Current, who then went to live with her in the said house.
On December 21, Augustus, together with Lloyd Nickens, went to the house of Agustinal and Corporal Current.
After the accused’s conversation with his old mistress, Corporal Current approached Augustus and shook hands.
Argument arose between Corporal Current and Augustus after the latter asked the former, “Did I not tell you to leave this woman
alone?” to which the former replied, “That is all right, she told me that she did not want to live with you any longer, but if she
wishes, she may quit me, and you can live with her.”
Corporal Current saw Augustus drawing his revolver and tried to take away the gun. Corporal Current jumped into the room and hid,
just as Augustus drew his revolver and fired at Agustinal.
Bullet hit her in the left side of the breast. Agustinal died.
Upon hearing the shot, Edward Robinson, wrestled the weapon out of Augustusthe accused’s hand.
Augustus eventually fled, gave himself up to the police of the town, and asked the latter to lock him up in jail.
Augustus pleaded not guilty. His defense was that when he fell backward when Corporal Current seized him, his revolver went off,
hitting the deceased.
The trial court convicted the Augustusaccused with the crime of murder with the penalty of death.

ISSUE: Whether or not the order of arrest is valid

WON the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, when Augustus killed Agustinal, was
present.

HELD and RATIO:

A convict granted conditional pardon, like the petitioner herein, who is recommitted must of course be convicted by final judgment of
a court of the subsequent crime or crimes with which he was charged before the criminal penalty for such subsequent offense(s) can be
imposed upon him. Again, since Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code defines a distinct, substantive, felony, the parolee or convict
who is regarded as having violated the provisions thereof must be charged, prosecuted and convicted by final judgment before he can
be made to suffer the penalty prescribed in Article 159.
Succinctly put, in proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached the
conditions of his pardon, the Executive Department has two options: (i) to proceed against him under Section 64 (i) of the Revised
Administrative Code; or (ii) to proceed against him under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code which imposes the penalty of prision
correccional, minimum period, upon a convict who "having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any
of the conditions of such pardon." Here, the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the Revised
Administrative Code. That choice is an exercise of the President's executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. NO. The
only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings, not
those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions. Likewise, the crime was committed with the presence of treachery,
as Agustinal was unexpectedly fired at close range while she was unarmed and unprepared at a time she was just listening to a
conversation. Other aggravating circumstances such as premeditation and the fact that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the
 ABELLA, Ma. Kiana | AGUILAR, Yna Marei | ARCILLA, Ericka Anne

deceased were also present. Premeditation was proven when Augustus asked a leave from Charles Gatchey to be absent from the
canteen where he was working and that he was carrying a loaded revolver when he had lunch that day with Eugenio Whited. It was
also testified that Augustus was heard that the time of Agustinal had come and that the accused would rather see the deceased dead in
the arms of another man.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
From the foregoing considerations, and as the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law, it is our opinion that the same
should be affirmed, as we do hereby affirm it with costs, provided, however, that the death penalty shall be executed according to the
law in force, and that in the event of a pardon being granted, the culprit shall suffer the accessory penalties of Aarticle 53 of the Penal
Code unless the same be expressly remitted in the pardon. So ordered.