You are on page 1of 1

PEOPLE

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.

8. Upon seeing attitude of appellant, the deceased


seized appellant by the neck whereupon the
appellant stabbed him on the face with the
penknife. BUT due to his lack of control of the
movt of his arm, the weapon landed on the
base of the neck of the deceased
9. Appellant alleged that he did not intend to
cause so grave an injury as the death of the
deceased

HOLDING:
The court held appellant did not act in legitimate self-
defense inasmuch as he provoked and commenced the
aggression by drawing his penknife but that the (1)
mitigating circumstances of lack of intention to cause so
grave an injury as to the death of the deceased, (2)
appellants act of voluntarily surrendering himself to the
authorities, and (3) him having acted under the
influence of passion and obfuscation should accord the
appellant a lowering in the degree of penalty imposed
upon him.

RULING:
The court ruled the case as one of homicide but the
degree of penalization lowered.

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.

You might also like