Professional Documents
Culture Documents
vs. ALBUQUERQUE
Criminal
Liability:
How
incurred
Wrongful
act
done
be
different
from
what
was
intended
Date:
December
19,
1933
Ponente:
Avancea,
J.
ISSUES:
1. WON
the
appellant
acted
in
self-defense
or
is
guilty
of
the
crime
of
homicide?
FACTS:
1. Gines
Albuquerque
y
Sanchez
is
a
widower
of
55
years
of
age
and
a
father
of
9
living
children.
He
has
been
suffering
from
partial
paralysis
for
some
time
and
as
a
result,
he
has
lost
control
of
movement
of
his
right
arm.
2. Appellant
lives
with
daughter
Maria
along
with
other
children
including
one
named
Pilar
who
became
acquainted
and
had
intimate
relations
with
the
deceased
Manuel
Osma
3. Appellants
daughter
Pilar,
hid
her
pregnancy
from
her
father;
the
latter
only
finding
out
about
said
pregnancy
after
she
had
given
birth
already.
4. Appellant
wrote
letters
to
the
deceased
which
were
hostile
and
threatening
at
times
and
other
times
entreating
the
deceased
to
legitimize
his
union
with
Pilar
by
marrying
her,
or
at
least
support
her
and
his
child.
5. Deceased
agreed
to
give
the
child
monthly
allowance
by
way
of
support
but
he
never
complied
with
promise
6. Appellant
presented
himself
at
the
office
of
deceased
one
day
and
on
that
occasion,
appellant
inflicted
a
wound
at
the
base
of
the
neck
of
the
deceased
causing
his
death.
7. Appellant
testified
that
he
proposed
to
said
deceased
to
marry
his
daughter
and
that
upon
hearing
the
latter
refuse
to
do
so,
the
appellant
whipped
out
his
penknife.
Related
Provisions:
Article
13(3),
Revised
Penal
Code
Mitigating
Circumstances.
The
following
are
mitigating
circumstances:
3.
That
the
offender
had
no
intention
to
commit
so
grave
a
wrong
as
that
committed.
Article
49,
Revised
Penal
Code
Penalty
to
Be
Imposed
Upon
the
Principals
When
the
Crime
Committed
is
Different
from
that
Intended.
In
cases
in
which
the
felony
committed
is
different
from
that
which
the
offender
intended
to
commit,
the
following
rules
shall
be
observed:
1.
If
the
penalty
prescribed
for
the
felony
committed
be
higher
than
that
corresponding
to
the
offense
which
the
accused
intended
to
commit,
the
penalty
corresponding
to
the
latter
shall
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.
2.
If
the
penalty
prescribed
for
the
felony
committed
be
lower
than
that
corresponding
to
the
one
which
the
accused
intended
to
commit,
the
penalty
for
the
former
shall
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.
3.
The
rule
established
by
the
next
preceding
paragraph
shall
not
be
applicable
if
the
acts
committed
by
the
guilty
person
shall
also
constitute
an
attempt
or
frustration
of
another
crime,
if
the
law
prescribes
a
higher
penalty
for
either
of
the
latter
offenses,
in
which
case
the
penalty
provided
for
the
attempt
or
the
frustrated
crime
shall
be
imposed
in
its
maximum
period.