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

Criminal Law- Guevarra vs. Almodovar

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 12 (3) OF THE R.P.C.

"Intent distinguished from discernment"

Case of People of the Guevarra vs. Almodovar
G.R.No. 75256 26January1989

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, petitioned the court for a special civil action for certiorari against the Hon. Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the city court of Legaspi. The petitioner, then 11 years old was target shooting with his best friend Teodoro Amine, Jr. and three other children in the backyard in the morning of 29October1984. Unfortunately, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on the left collar bone, w/c then caused his death.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Can an 11- year old boy be charged w/ the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence?

- Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means: a determination to do certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent. Discernment means: the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
- While they (intent and discernment) are products of mental processes w/in a person; intent refers to the desired of one’s act (active) while discernment refers to the moral significance that a person ascribes to an act (passive)
- Minors 9yrs to 15yrs are presumed to be without criminal capacity; but this presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they) acted w/ discernment
- Discernment is embraced w/in the concept of intelligence w/c is one of the elements of a culpable felony, thus it is important that a minor 9yrs to below 15 yrs of age to have acted w/ discernment to show that he acted w/ intelligence thus being liable for the offense under Art 365 of the R.PC

HELD:
PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TRO EFFECTIVE 17SEPTEMBER1986 IS LIFTED. LET IT BE REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS. NO COSTS.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People vs. Oriente

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 11 Par. 1 and ARTICLE 13 Par(s): 3 and 4 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

"FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY (11")
"CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY (13)"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Oriente
G.R.No. 155094 30January2007

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case is about Manuel Oriente’s appeal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. The appellant w/ other persons, attacked and assaulted Romulo Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe on different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death (as confirmed by the medico- legal). In the case there was one witness for the prosecution; Arnel Tanael.
When the case was tried at the C.A. the court (C.A.) found that the R.T.C erred in finding two mitigating circumstances were present, namely, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party, so the court modified the penalty imposed by the R.T.C.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
[in this particular case there are a number of issues, but the most compelling is the 2nd and 4th issues]

DID THE C.A. AND THE R.T.C ERR IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM, AND THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT TO PREVENT THE SAME WAS REASONABLE AND FALLS UNDER THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OR SELF-DEFENSE


- No. Since when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing is legally justified. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The appellant cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.
- All three requirements for self- defense must concur; but unlawful aggression is condition sine qua non.
- The fact that the deceased was not able to make use of his gun after being hit in the forehead by the weapon of the appellant as alleged by the defense makes their claim of self-defense unusual
- Injuries sustained by the deceased were extensive
- Importantly, the appellant failed to establish the existence of the gun, that was alleged to have constituted the “unlawful aggression”

CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE, DUE TO THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS LACK OF INTENT IN THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE DECEASED?

- Modification of the penalties was based on the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
- The claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated because the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim
- Provocation in this case cannot be appreciated as well since provocation is deemed sufficient if it is adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, w/c must be proportionate in gravity
- The fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by itself the sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party as contemplated by law. Also, appellant failed to establish by competent evidence that the deceased had a gun and used it to threaten petitioner.

HELD:
PETITION DENIED. DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF C.A. ARE AFFIRMED W/ MODIFICATIONS, the C.A. erred in imposing 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. In the computation of the maximum term, the law prescribes that the attending circumstances should be considered. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the penalty that should be imposed is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by law, that is, reclusion temporal in its medium period, or, anywhere between fourteen years, eight months and one day to seventeen years and four months
I hope this helps.

Jeff David