Aug 28, 2009

Criminal Law- People of the Philippine Islands vs. Diokno

THIS CASE IS REGARDING ARTICLE 13 PAR(S) (5,6, & 7)

"Those who act with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent"

Case of People of the Philippine Islands vs. Diokno
G.R.No. L- 45100 26October1936

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Epifanio and Roman Diokno appealed the decision of the C.F.I of Laguna. On 04 January 1935, Salome Diokno, to whom Yu Hiong was engaged for about a year, invited the latter to go with her. Yu Hiong accepted the invitation but he told Salome that her father was angry with him. On 05- 06 January 1935 Roman Diokno, telegraphed his father informing him that his sister has eloped w/ the Chinaman. On 07 January 1935 they chanced upon the Chinaman at the house of Antonio Layco, upon confrontation, the Chinaman implored pardon, and was then stabbed by the accused Roman stabbed him at the back and later on the left side, and Epifanio stabbed him once, upon falling on the landing of the stairs the Chinaman was then stabbed repeatedly.
The municipal police was alerted to the incident and was able to catch Epifanio in the crime scene; he admitted that he stabbed the victim. While Roman was then accosted after 3 days, the wounds that were inflicted on the Chinaman were mortal which then caused the death of the victim.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AS BASED ON ART 13 PAR(s) 5, 6 & 7?

- YES. With regard to art 13 par 5, because although the elopement took place on January 4, 1935, and the aggression on the 7th, the offense did not cease while and her marriage to the deceased unlegalized. Therefore, there was no interruption from the time the offense was committed to the vindication of it. That the accused belongs to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the home.
- YES. With regard to art 13 par 6, because the fact, that the accused The fact that the accused saw the victim run upstairs when he became aware of their presence, as if he refused to deal with them after having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion which blinded them and led them to commit the crime with which they are charged
- Yes. With regard to art 13 par 7, it can be granted to Epifanio Diokno, after surrendering immediately.

HELD:

PETITIONERS ARE FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE AND GRANTING 3 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR EPIFANIO AND 2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ROMAN, W/ NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THUS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A PENALTY A DEGREE LOWER THAN WHAT IS PRESCRIBED BY LAW PRISION MAYOR IN THIS CASE (8 YEARS TO 1 DAY)
I hope this helps.

Jeff David

No comments:

Post a Comment

If you have any comments on the above cases or topics, by all means!