PEOPLE vs.

VICENTE MATBAGON

FACTS:
On the night of 13 May 1934, Marciano Retubado and Vicente Matbagon had a fight at the cockpit
in Ilihan which the fight resulted from a remark made by Matbagon respecting the tuba sold by the
niece of Retubado but they had already beaten each other.

Shortly afterwards, Retubado called his son and went home which he carried a torch struck in a
bottle when he came opposite a colo tree, about 15 meters away from the cockpit, Matbagon who
has a pocket knife in his hand approached the Retubado and stabbed him in the breast. Meanwhile
Retubado struck the Matbagon on the head with the bottle that he was carrying. A struggle between
the accused and Retubado followed. Retubado received in all four wounds, one on the chin; and
another on the right side of the face; one, two inches deep, on the left side of the chest and another,
one and one-half inches deep, on the breast which caused his death.

The trial judge found the defendant guilty of murder because the crime was committed with
treachery that an aggravating circumstances of nocturnity was offset by the mitigating
circumstances of passion of obfuscation since the defendant committed the crime because he had
bitten a few minutes before by the deceased.

ISSUE:
Whether or not nocturnity should be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in this
case.

RULING:
No, No.6 of 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is an aggravating circumstances that the
crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense; that whenever more than three armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense it shall be deemed committed
by band.

In the case at bar the accused neither sought the nighttime nor took advantage of it to commit the
crime with greater facility or to escape. If he had hidden behind the tree and attached the deceased
without warning or availed himself of the darkness to prevent his being recognized or to escape,
then nocturnity would have been an aggravating circumstance. To take the crime clearly implies
an intention to do so, and one does not avail oneself of the darkness unless one intended to do so.
PEOPLE vs. DANNY DELOS SANTOS

FACTS:
On 6 November 1997 at around 8:00 pm, Rod Flores who is drinking gin with Narciso Salvador,
Marvin Tablate and Jayvee Rainier at the house of Rainier in Bulacan, when a witness named
Marcelino De Leon fetch a water from a nearby faucet and he approached the group to borrow
Flore’s cart. While waiting for the cart, he stood across Flores who is seated and conversing with
the group.

Suddenly, Delos Santos emerged from the back and stabbed him with a knife, making an upward
and downward thrust, Flores ran after he was stabbed twice while Delos Santos chased him and
stabbed him many times which resulted to Flores’ intestines bulged out of his tome and death.

On the other hand, the accused contended that there was no altercation between him and Flores,
which follows that no motive to kill can be attributed to him and he was in his auntie’s house at
the time of crime happened and assailing the credibility of witnesses testimony for being delay for
2 months.

The Trial court rendered its decision that Danny Delos Santos is found guilty of the crime of
murder with qualifying circumstances of treachery and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by
lethal injection

ISSUE:
Whether or not an aggravating circumstances of imposing higher penalties should be imposed to
the accused

RULING:
No, in the imposition of penalty, the court cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty considered by the trial court. Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. This
rule may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well-established rule that statutes regulating
the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at
the time of their passage.
PEOPLE vs. ROBERTO PANSENSOY

FACTS:
Analie Pansensoy, who is the legitimate wife of Roberto Pansensoy, had a live-in relationship with
Hilario Reyes where they rent a house in Lumang Bayan, Antipoloi Rizal. On 8 May 1994, Roberto
who has a gun with him knocked on the door at the house where Analie and Hilario lived. When
Analie opened the door she show her husband with a gun and tried to wrest the gun away but she
failed. On the foregoing event, Roberto asked Hilario if he really loves his wife and if it singled,
Hilario responded in affirmative and he is still singe which the made Roberto count one to three
and made the gun shot at the 3rd count which hit Hilario’s forehead and sprawled on the ground.

On the other hand, the accused contended that as he kicked the door of the house where his wife
and her paramour lived they were only clad in their underwear lying beside each other. As result,
he dragged his wife’s hair out of the room while doing so, he saw Hilario pull a gun from the table
which was covered with clothes. Consequently, he let go his wife and jumped on Hilario to grab
the gun as they struggled for possession of the gun he hit the testicles of Hilario with his knees.
Hilario fell and the gun suddenly went off and was shot on the head and of Hilario,

The Trial Court render its decision that Pansensoy is guilty with the crime of murder and hereby
sentence to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is present in this case?

RULING:
Yes, the crime proven in this case is not murder but only homicide with mitigating circumstance
of passion and obfuscation. The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code
is reclusion temporal with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the penalty
which may be imposed pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code
is in its minimum period. In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation the following elements should concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was not
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.