People of the Phil. vs.

Alfredo Regulacion

Facts:

The record of the case shows that at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of March
6, 1966, the accused Alfredo Regulacion, Manuel Balanguit, Romualdo Acebuche, and
the deceased Cayetano Sosing were drinking beer in the house of a certain Panoy in
Barrio Camparangan, Pambujan, Northern Samar. After drinking for about an hour, the
group went to the poblacion of Pambujan on board the jeep of one Dandoy Poso and
proceeded to the store of Genaro de la Cruz where they ordered a case of beer. They
stayed there for another hour and then went to the house of the accused Alfredo
Regulacion where they were served food and drinks. Music from a radio-phono was
played while they were eating and drinking. In the course of their meal, Romualdo
Acebuche asked to dance with the daughter of the accused who was serving them, but
the accused demurred, saying that the girl did not know how to dance. however, the
deceased Cayetano Sosing butted in and insisted that the accused should allow the girl
to dance with Romualdo Acebuche saying: "Oh. come on, let your daughter dance with
Padi Nanong. Anyway, my nephew is already thru with our daughter and someday we'll
be in-laws." 2 Upon hearing this, the accused stood up in anger and threw a glass half-
filled with beer at Cayetano Sosing, hitting him on the shoulder. Sosing also stood up.
He was also very angry and would have fought with the accused had not their
companions separated them. Manuel Balanguit pushed the deceased towards the door
who then left with 2 companions.

Issue:

The appellant is asking for a lower penalty, presented mitigating circumstances,

and no aggravating circumstance.

Held:

The crime committed, however, is only homicide, in the absense of

circumstances that would qualify the killing to murder. The findings of the trial court that
the killing was treacherous because the deceased was not in a position to defend
himself as he was unarmed is not supported by conclusive proof.

Evident Premeditation is negated by evidence that meeting of the accused and

deceased was bychance. Evident premeditation has not also been established because
the meeting of the accused and thedeceased in the house of Balanquit was a chance
encounter and not purposely sought after. Acebuche, awitness for the prosecution,
declared that when he went home from the house of the accused, the latter insisted on
escorting him home. Then, while on their way, Balanquit asked the driver of the jeep to
drop himat his house, but the accused objected saying that both of them shall
accompany Acebuche home.Balanguit pleaded with the accused that he be allowed to
go home or at least inform his wife where he wasgoing, but the accused was adamant.
The accused finally consented after they agreed that he be the oneto inform the wife of
Balanguit where they were going. They did not know that the deceased Sosing was
inthe house of Balanguit at the time. Had they known, Balanguit said that he would not
have insisted on going back.

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is, modified and the accused-
appellant should be, as he is hereby, sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years
and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The judgment is affirmed in all
other respects.

Danofrata vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:

At about six o’clock in the evening of October 9, 1994, prosecution witness

Reynaldo Francia was standing in front of his house in Champaca Street, San Roque,
Navotas. Then and there he saw petitioner Miguel Danofrata engage in a slugging
match with his wife, Leonor. She struck petitioner with a plastic chair, while he punched
her by way of retaliation. Petitioner then ran home but shortly afterwards, he rushed
outside again, kicking the neighbors he encountered. In turn, without further ado, three
of the neighbors whom he had treated so uncivilly ganged up on him and mauled him,
causing petitioner to run home anew.

Petitioner then armed himself with a knife and went back to the place where he
had received a mauling. He proceeded to the house of one Mang Mario Gonzales, the
father of Alfredo “Loloy” Gonzales. Petitioner then challenged Mang Mario to a fight. At
this juncture, petitioner spotted Alfredo, who was on his way home. Without warning,
petitioner stabbed Alfredo in the chest fatally.

Horrified, witness Reynaldo Francia called the police. When the agents of the law
arrived, Francia informed them about the incident and later he gave a written statement
to SPO1 Daniel Ferrer. Petitioner did not wait for the law enforcers to arrive, but
immediately made himself scarce.
 Prosecution witness Benjamin Bautista, who was then on his way to Gatbonton
Street to buy medicine, saw the petitioner fleeing. Bautista observed that petitioner’s
clothing was bloody. He also saw petitioner drop a bladed weapon, which Bautista
picked up and turned over to the police investigator.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellate court is correct in sustaining the trial court’s finding
that the petitioner was entitled to a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and
obfuscation?

Held:

Passion and obfuscation exist when (1) there is an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such a condition of the mind, and (2) the said act which produced
the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity. There is passion and obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a
legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. In this case it was established
that petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation and that petitioner was mauled by
his neighbors after he kicked some of them for laughing at him. These events and
circumstances prior to the killing of Alfredo Gonzales could have caused unusual
outbursts of passion and emotion on petitioner’s part. These resulted in the tragic
stabbing of the victim thus entitling petitioner to the mitigating circumstance analogous
to passion and obfuscation.

The penalty should thus be within the range of prision mayor as the minimum
and reclusion temporal in its minimum period as the maximum. The penalty actually
imposed – 10 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years and 8 months as maximum is
within the parameters set by the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Doroteo Tobes @ Doting vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

Victim was Joel Escareal alias Wiily who was allegedly hurled bottles inside the
AM Disco infuriated Wilfredo Pollentes alias Dido thus their confrontation. Wilfredo
boxed Joel on his chin, fell down and as he was about to rise again, Pollentes was
poised to box him again.

Joel drew his 38 Cal revolver and shot Pollentes Pollentes walked towards the street
while Joel stood near the door of the AM Disco House.

Accused Doroteo Tobes alias Doting went out the Disco house and suddenly placed his
arm around Joel and hurled him then shot the latter in the left temporal area and shot
another in the air.

After which, he surrendered the revolver to policeman Elenterio Celespara in the

presence of Ben Esquillo, a retired police officer.

Witnesses Cenon Cobrana (5 ½ m. away) and JovertoSula (3 m. away) testified that the
petitioner was the aggressor.

Held:

According to the SC, when petitioner attacked the victim, the aggression by the
victim against the accused no longer existed. A person defending a relative or stranger
must find out who the aggressor was before the undertaking of the defense. In this
case, petitioner was the aggressor. Absent unlawful aggression on the part of Escareal,
there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

However, the court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary

surrender of firearms but affirmed CA’s decision of Homicide.

People of the Phils. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez

Facts:

After their vehicles almost collided with each other, Andres and Appellant had an
altercation. Thereafter, Andres went back inside to his car when he was blocked by the
appellant’s son who said, "Anong problema mo sa erpat ko." Andres testified that he felt
threatened and so he immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the driver’s seat, closed
the door, and partially opened the car window just wide enough to talk back to
appellant’s son, Dino. In the meantime, appellant, thinking that Andres was going to get
something from his car, took a gun. However, he was pushed by his daughter-in-law
which made him lost his balance and accidentally fired the gun hitting Andres’ wife, and
two sons. Appellant was charged and convicted of Murder, Double Frustrated Murder
and Attempted Murder in the RTC. The appellant seeks a reversal and prays that
judgment be rendered exempting him from criminal and civil liabilities contending that
he had no intention to shoot Noel Andres much less his wife nor the children. He lost his
balance when his daughter Trisha approached and pushed him backwards to stop him
from joining Dino and Noel Andres but the appellant tried to free his right hand holding
the gun and it accidentally fired.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not there was treachery attendant in the crime.

(2) The appellant assigns as error the trial courts rejection of the mitigating
circumstances pleaded by the defense which allegedly attended the
commission of the crime, i.e., lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong,
passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and voluntary
surrender.

Ruling:

(1) No. Treachery under par.16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is
defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods or forms in the
execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense
which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be appreciated two
elements must concur: 1) the employment of means of execution that would
insure the safety of the accused from retaliatory acts of the intended victim
and leaving the latter without an opportunity to defend himself and 2) the
means employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.

“We affirm the recommendation of the Solicitor-General that the shooting was not
attended by treachery and accordingly the crime committed for the death of Feliber
Andres is homicide and not murder.”

(2) The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and

obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong, pleaded by the defense, were not convincingly proved and
none can be considered in the imposition of penalties. The testimony of
prosecution witness contradicts the appellants pretense of voluntary
surrender. Witness Ramos testified that the appellant drove away towards the
gate of the memorial park while he was questioning him after the shooting
and had not Noel Andres and onlookers blocked his path the appellant could
have fled the scene of the crime.
 The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not
obtaining. For this mitigating circumstance to be considered, it must be shown
that (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was
committed by the intended victim; (2) that the crime was committed within a
reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that
produced the obfuscation in the accused mind; and that (3) the passion and
obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness
or revenge. The aggressive behavior of Noel Andres towards the appellant
and his son may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient
provocation to shoot at the complainant’s vehicle.
The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete
defense of a relative is also unmeritorious since the act of Andres in cursing
and shouting at the appellant and his son do not amount to an unlawful
aggression against them, Dino Gonzalez. Finally, the plea for the appreciation
of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is
likewise devoid of merit. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there
is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit
a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at
the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used,
the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim.

“WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED. The appellant is
hereby found guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber Andres and is sentenced to an
indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its medium period, as
minimum, to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal in its medium period,
as maximum. For each count of the slight physical injuries committed against Kenneth
Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 20 days of arresto
menor.”