You are on page 1of 2

3.

People v Capalac
GR No. L38297
Aggravating Circumstances: Taking advantage of public office
Date of Promulgation: Oct 23, 1982
Facts:
Moises Capalac, the brother of accused Mario Capalac (a police officer), was stabbed
by Jimmy Magaso. Following this incident, in the cockpit of Iligan, Jimmy was trying to
escape when he was confronted by the Moises brothers (Mario and Jesus 1) and 2 other
companions2.The attempt of Jimmy to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having
alighted after two shots were fired in succession. Knowing that he was completely at the
mercy of the two brothers, he raised his hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not
appeased. He was pistol-whipped by Mario, and after having fallen in the ground, was
stabbed on the chest 3-4 times by Jesus. He died on the way to the hospital. Mario
was convicted of murder, as qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. The
lower Court also found that he took advantage of his position as a police officer. He
was sentenced to death. Mario appealed, thus this review.

Issues/Held:
1. WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public
office/position NO
2. WON there was
a. Conspiracy - YES
b. Treachery YES
c. Evident premeditation NO
d. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication YES
Ratio:
1. The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force did not by itself
justify the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position. He
acted like a brother (of Moises), instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a
vicious assault on his kin. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had a pistol
with him. It came in handy and he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman is of
no relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility.

1 Jesus has already died and so he was not included as an accused in the information filed.
2 The two companions were not named and were not included in the information

2. a. There was conspiracy since the two brothers, as well as their 2 companions,
apparently had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises. They all
acted in concert.
b. There was treachery since the crime was committed to insure that Jimmy would
die. His situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile
and unavailing. There was also no risk to the aggressors since two other
companions assisted them.
c. There is no evident premeditation. The brothers were prompted by their desire to
avenge Moises. They went after Jimmy, assaulted him, and relied on the weapons
that they carried. There was no evidence that they deliberately employed means to
add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
d. There is mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication since the purpose of the
crime was to vindicate the stabbing of Moises by Jimmy.

Decision:
Decision modified. In lieu of mitigating circumstance of immeadiate vindication, penalty
of death is lowered to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor min to 17 years, 4 mos, and
1 day of reclusion temporal max. Decision affirmed in all other aspects.

Opinions:
Concur:
Concepcion, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova