Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Torpio

    Uploaded by

    Colleen Fretzie Laguardia Navarro
    188 views2 pages
    The accused was drinking with the deceased when an argument arose after the accused refused to drink more. The deceased became angry, doused the accused with gin, and boxed and tried to stab him with a knife. The accused fled and retrieved his own knife. Upon returning, a fight ensued where the accused stabbed and killed the deceased. The trial court found the accused guilty of murder. However, the Supreme Court ruled the accused could invoke the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, as the deceased had humiliated and attacked the accused first, constituting a grave offense. Though time passed, the killing was in immediate vindication of the offense by the deceased. The accused was thus found guilty of homicide with a mitigating

    Original Description:

    people vs torpio

    Original Title

    People vs Torpio (1)

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The accused was drinking with the deceased when an argument arose after the accused refused to drink more. The deceased became angry, doused the accused with gin, and boxed and tried to stab him with a knife. The accused fled and retrieved his own knife. Upon returning, a fight ensued where the accused stabbed and killed the deceased. The trial court found the accused guilty of murder. However, the Supreme Court ruled the accused could invoke the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, as the deceased had humiliated and attacked the accused first, constituting a grave offense. Though time passed, the killing was in immediate vindication of the offense by the deceased. The accused was thus found guilty of homicide with a mitigating

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    188 views2 pages

    People Vs Torpio

    Uploaded by

    Colleen Fretzie Laguardia Navarro
    The accused was drinking with the deceased when an argument arose after the accused refused to drink more. The deceased became angry, doused the accused with gin, and boxed and tried to stab him with a knife. The accused fled and retrieved his own knife. Upon returning, a fight ensued where the accused stabbed and killed the deceased. The trial court found the accused guilty of murder. However, the Supreme Court ruled the accused could invoke the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, as the deceased had humiliated and attacked the accused first, constituting a grave offense. Though time passed, the killing was in immediate vindication of the offense by the deceased. The accused was thus found guilty of homicide with a mitigating

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Group 1 When mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation appreciated PEOPLE vs.

    TORPIO
    CALLEJO, SR., J.:

    FACTS: The accused was invited by the deceased for a drinking spree. They had some round of drinks of tuba and beer at a nearby store and a cottage at the seashore. For one reason or another, because the accused refused to drink anymore, the deceased got angry and he then bathed the accused with gin, and boxed or mauled him and tried to stab him with a batangas knife but failed to hit the accused as the latter was crawling under the table. The accused got up and ran towards their home got a knife and went back and upon arrival, the deceased seeing the accused, ran. The accused caught up and stabbed the deceased. When he was hit, the deceased ran but then he got entangled with a fishing net and fell on his back, and the accused mounted on him and continued stabbing him. The trial court rendered udgment convicting him of murder. ISSUE: WON the accused could invoke the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party. RULING: The accused !ennis Torpio y "strera is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of #omicide. The appellant was humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by the deceased. $lthough the unlawful aggression had ceased when the appellant stabbed $nthony, it was nonetheless a grave offense for which the appellant may be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense. %ut the mitigating circumstance ! su!!icient "r # cati n cannot be considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These two circumstances arose from one and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by $nthony, so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance. &n appreciating the mitigating circumstances, the trial court explained' ... The (ourt considers for appreciation the following )1* that su!!icient "r # cati n on the part of the deceased preceded the act, this is shown by the mauling of Dennis, his being bathed with liquor, and the deceaseds having tried to stab Dennis at the cottage before Dennis went home and got his knife. )+* the act of killing was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the

    felony. ,Imme$iate% means "r &imate and, hence, an interval of time ma' lapse from the commission of the grave offense to the crime in vindication thereof. This was proven by the wrong done on !ennis by $nthony prior to the stabbing incident. The in ury he sustained, the mauling, the humiliation he suffered, the near attempt at killing !ennis, these constitute some grave offense and an interval of time elapsed before the accused returned and did the commission of a felon which is killing. NOTES: &n par - of art 1. ,immediately preceded the act there should not be any interval of time. The /panish text is controlling !la de haber precedido inmediatamente provocacion o amena"a adecuada &n par 0 of art 1. ,in the immediate vindication1 2 ,#mmediate1 means proximate and, hence, an interval of time may lapse from the commission of the grave offense to the crime in #in$icati n thereof. !la de haber e$ucatado en vindicacion pro%ima de una ofensa grave

    You might also like