PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE observing the presence of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado

Capiña went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting

FACTS:
and sat by her right side, and, without saying a word,
Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue and the Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand
deceased Amado Capiña lived in the barrio of Sta. Isabel, on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this
city of San Pablo, Province of Laguna. The former had highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado Capiña,
been courting the latter in vain, and that on one Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and
occasion, about one month before that fatal night, honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife which
Amado Capiña snatched a handkerchief belonging to her, she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of
bearing her nickname "Aveling,: while it was being punishing Amado's offending hand. Amado seized
washed by her cousin, Josefa Tapay. While Avelina was Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife
feeding a dog under her house, Amado approached her with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base
and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and of the left side of the neck, inflicting upon him a wound.
he thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and
ISSUE:
touched her breast, on account of which Avelina, a
resolute and quick- tempered girl, slapped Amado, gave Is there a mitigating circumstance in this case?
him fist blows and kicked him. She kept the matter to
HELD:
herself, until the following morning when she informed
her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with Yes. In the instant case, if defendant and appellant had
a long fan knife, whenever she went out, evidently for killed Amado Capiña, when the latter climbed up her
self-protection. One night, Amado climbed up the house house late at night on September 15, 1942, and
of defendant and appellant, and surreptitiously entered surreptitiously entered her bedroom, undoubtedly for
the room where she was sleeping. He felt her forehead, the purpose of raping her, as indicated by his previous
evidently with the intention of abusing her. She acts and conduct, instead of merely shouting for help,
immediately screamed for help, which awakened her she could have been perfectly justified in killing him.
parents and brought them to her side. Amado came out
from where he had hidden under a bed in Avelina's room According to the facts established by the evidence and
and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, found by the learned trial court in this case, when the
asking for forgiveness; and when Avelina's mother made deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on
an attempt to beat Amado, her husband prevented her the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and
from doing so, stating that Amado probably did not placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh,
realize what he was doing. Nicolas Jaurigue sent for the without her consent, the said chapel was lighted with
barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada, and for Amado's electric lights, and there were already several people,
parents, the following morning. Amado's parents came about ten of them, inside the chapel, including her own
to the house of Nicolas Jaurigue and apologized for the father and the barrio lieutenant and other dignitaries of
misconduct of their son; and as Nicolas Jaurigue was then the organization; and under the circumstances, there
angry, he told them to end the conversation, as he might was and there could be no possibility of her being raped.
not be able to control himself. Avelina received And when she gave Amado Capiña a thrust at the base of
information that Amado had been falsely boasting in the the left side of his neck, inflicting upon him a mortal
neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person wound 41/2 inches deep, causing his death a few
and that she had even asked him to elope with her and moments later, the means employed by her in the
that if he should not marry her, she would take poison. defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under
the facts and circumstances of the case, she cannot be
Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue entered the legally declared completely exempt from criminal
chapel shortly after the arrival of her father, also for the liability.
purpose of attending religious services, and sat on the
bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately
Capiña was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon and voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the
barrio lieutenant in said chapel, admitting having joke in the presence of so many guests. Hence, it is
stabbed the deceased, immediately after the incident, believed that the lower court very properly gave
and agreed to go to her house shortly thereafter and to defendant the benefit of a mitigating circumstance, and
remain there subject to the order of the said barrio correctly sentenced him to the minimum degree of the
lieutenant, an agent of the authorities (United States vs. penalty provided for the crime of murder.
Fortaleza, 12 Phil., 472); and the further fact that she had
PEOPLE VS IGNAS
acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
committed against her a few moments before, and upon FACTS:
such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation,
or temporary loss of reason and self-control, should be Appellant is an elementary school graduate. He resided
considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor at Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet, where he operated a
(People vs. Parana, 64 Phil., 331; People vs. Sakam, 61 bakery. He is married to Wilma Grace Ignas, by whom he
Phil., 27; United States vs. Arribas, 1 Phil., 86). has a son of minor age. Wilma Grace used to be the
cashier of Windfield Enterprise, which is owned by
Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not Pauline Gumpic. Pauline had a brother, Nemesio Lopate.
intended to kill the deceased but merely wanted to It was he whom appellant fatally shot.
punish his offending hand with her knife, as shown by the
fact that she inflicted upon him only one single wound. On the evening of October 16, 1995, Wilma Grace,
And this is another mitigating circumstance which should Romenda, and Nemesio went to Manila. Romenda and
be considered in her favor (United States vs. Brobst, 14 Nemesio were sending off Wilma Grace at the Ninoy
Phil., 310; United States vs. Diaz, 15 Phil., 123). Aquino International Airport as she was leaving for
Taiwan to work as a domestic helper. Upon arrival in
Manila, the trio checked at Dangwa Inn, with Nemesio
and Wilma Grace sharing a room. All three of them
US VS AMPAR
stayed at the inn until October 18, 1995, when Wilma
FACTS: Grace left for Taiwan. Romenda received from Taiwan
four letters written by Wilma Grace on various dates.
A fiesta was in progress in the barrio of Magbaboy,
Although all the letters were addressed to Romenda, two
municipality of San Carlos, Province of Occidental
of them were meant by Wilma Grace to be read by her
Negros. Roast pig was being served. The accused, an old
paramour, Nemesio. In the other two letters, Wilma
man, Clemente Ampar, proceeded to the kitchen and
Grace instructed Romenda to reveal to appellant her
asked Modesto Patobo for some of the delicacy. Patobo's
affair with Nemesio. It was only sometime late in
answer was; "There is no more. Come here and I will
February 1996 that Romenda informed appellant about
make roast pig of you." The effect of this on the accused
the extramarital affair between Wilma Grace and
as explained by him in his confession was, "Why was he
Nemesio. Appellant became furious. He declared "Addan
doing like that, I am not a child." With this as the
to aldaw na dayta nga Nemesio, patayek dayta nga
provocation, a little later while the said Modesto Patobo
Nemesio" (There will be a day for that Nemesio. I will kill
was squatting down, the accused came up behind him
that Nemesio). Appellant then got all the letters of Wilma
and struck him on the head with an ax, causing death the
Grace from Romenda.
following day.
On March 10, witness Bayanes said she was at the
ISSUE:
unloading area (bagsakan), conversing with another
Is there a mitigating circumstance? dealer at the latter's booth, when suddenly two gunshots
shattered the quiet evening. Initially, she only saw the
HELD: gunman's profile, but when he turned, she caught a
Yes. The offense which the defendant was endeavoring glimpse of his face. She immediately recognized him as
to vindicate would to the average person be considered the appellant June Ignas.
as a mere trifle. But to this defendant, an old man, it
evidently was a serious matter to be made the but of a
Prosecution witness Mona Barredo said that the words, if appellant attacked his victim in proximate
appellant came to her residence at Pico, La Trinidad. vindication of a grave offense, he could no longer claim
After being served refreshments, appellant took out a in the same breath that passion and obfuscation also
handgun from his jacket and removed the empty shells blinded him. Moreover, for passion and obfuscation to
from the chamber. Appellant then told her to throw the be well founded, the following requisites must concur:
empty cartridges out of the window. Because of (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
nervousness she complied. Barredo also said that produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act which
appellant disclosed to her that he had just shot his wife's produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
paramour. commission of the crime by a considerable length of
time, during which the perpetrator might recover his
ISSUE:
moral equanimity. To repeat, the period of two (2) weeks
Is there a mitigating circumstance? which spanned the discovery of his wife's extramarital
dalliance and the killing of her lover was sufficient time
HELD: for appellant to reflect and cool off.
No. There was literally no "immediate vindication" to For voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstance to be
speak of in this case. Appellant had sufficient time to valid, the following requirements must be satisfied: (1)
recover his serenity following the discovery of his wife's the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the
infidelity. Nor could passion and obfuscation be offender surrendered himself to a person in authority;
appreciated in appellant's favor because the killing was and (3) the surrender was voluntary.Records show,
not proximate to the time of the offense. Appellant however, that leaflets and posters were circulated for
became aware of the treatment offensive to his dignity information to bring the killer of Nemesio to justice. A
as a husband and to the peace and tranquility of his team of police investigators from La Trinidad, Benguet
home two weeks earlier. This interval between the then went to Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya to invite appellant
revelation of his wife's adultery and the fatal shooting for questioning. Only then did he return to Benguet. But
was ample and sufficient for reason and self-control to he denied the charge of killing the victim. Clearly,
reassert themselves in appellant's mind. As to the appellant's claimed surrender was neither spontaneous
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the OSG nor voluntary.
stresses that his supposed surrender at Kayapa, Nueva
Vizcaya was actually due to the efforts of law enforcers
who came looking for him. There he did not resist, but
PEOPLE VS BENITO
lack of resistance alone is not tantamount to voluntary
surrender, which denotes a positive act and not merely FACTS:
passive conduct.
Benito, 26, a native of Naga City, in his sworn statement,
The passage of a fortnight is more than sufficient time for which was taken, about five hours after the shooting, by
appellant to have recovered his composure and Corporal E. Cortez and Patrolmen J. de la Cruz, Jr. and H.
assuaged the unease in his mind. The established rule is Roxas of the Manila Police. According to the suspect, he
that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave was a former employee of the Civil Service Commission
offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover and was suspended for dishonesty. After two months, he
his serenity. Thus, in this case, we hold that the was reinstated but was criminally charged for Qualified
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a Theft, Malversation of Public Funds, Estafa and
grave offense cannot be considered in appellant's favor. Falsification of Public Documents and administratively
charged for 'DISHONESTY' culminating in his dismissal
The alleged mitigating circumstance of passion and
from the Civil Service.
obfuscation is inexistent. The rule is that the mitigating
circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and On Dec. 11, 1969, the suspect went to the Civil Service
passion and obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same and requested the victim to help him in his cases but the
time, if they arise from the same facts or motive. In other former allegedly uttered to the suspect “UMALIS KA NGA
DIYAN BAKA MAY MANGYARI PA SA IYO AT BAKA IPAYARI defraudation committed by Benito and for obstinately
KITA DITO”. The suspect left and returned the following refusing to change his report.
morning at 11:00 a.m. of Dec. 12, 1969, and when they
met again, the victim allegedly remarked in the presence
of many people, 'NAGIISTAMBAY PALA DITO ANG PEOPLE VS DAVID
MAGNANAKAW'. The suspect who was humiliated and
incensed, left. At about 5:25 p.m. of that same day, Dec. FACTS:
12, 1969, the suspect who was armed with an unlicensed The herein defendant-appellant Leovigildo David is the
firearm, waited for the victim inside the Civil Service son of Teodoro David, a democrata candidate for
compound. The victim showed up and drove his car along municipal president of Dinalupihan, and the offended
P. Paredes St. The suspect with evident premeditation, party Jose V. Reyes is the brother of Emilio Reyes,
surreptitiously followed the victim and when the latter's nacionalista candidate for member of the provincial
car was at a full stop at the corner of Lepanto and P. board of Bataan, both during the general elections of
Paredes Sts. due to heavy traffic of motor vehicles, the 1931.
suspect without any warning or provocation, suddenly
and treacherously shot the victim eight (8) times on the While Emilio Reyes and Teodoro David were engaged in
head and different parts of the body at close range which an argument after the former had quarreled with the
consequently caused the latter's death on the spot inside aforesaid defendant-appellant, then an election
his car. inspector, because said Emilio Reyes wanted to see the
list of registered voters, Jose, the brother of Emilio,
ISSUE: arrived at the scene and asked who was making trouble.
Is there a mitigating circumstance? Upon hearing him, Teodoro David, in a contemptuous
tone, said in Tagalog: "Phse, ichura mong lalake" (Pshaw,
HELD: you are but a shrimp) and, opening the door of the car
where he was, rushed upon his interlocutor and the two
No. The mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave
engaged in a hand-to-hand fight during which both fell to
offense cannot be appreciated in Benito's favor. Benito
the ground. Teodoro David fell on his right side, face
had more than sufficient time to suppress his emotion
downwards, Jose V. Reyes on top of him.
over said remark if he ever did resent it.
While Jose V. Reyes was on top Teodoro David, there was
The six-hour interval between the alleged grave offense
heard a first shot, which did not hit its mark, fired by the
committed by Moncayo against Benito and the
herein defendant Leovigildo David, second and third shot
assassination was more than sufficient to enable Benito
hit Reyes. There rang a fourth shot which hit the left axilla
to recover his serenity. But instead of using that time to
of the boy German Pinili, who was perched on top of a
regain his composure, he evolved the plan of liquidating
fence witnessing the fight between Jose V. Reyes and
Moncayo after office hours. Benito literally ambushed
Teodoro David. Jose V. Reyes was immediately brought
Moncayo just a few minutes after the victim had left the
by his brother Emilio Reyes.
office. He acted with treachery and evident
premeditation in penetrating the cold-blooded murder. The constabulary soldiers seized the revolver of the
defendant Leovigildo David and placed him under arrest.
The facts of the strongly suggest that what really
In the chamber of the revolver of the defendant
impelled Benito to assassinate Moncayo was not the
Leovigildo David were found four empty cartridges.
latter's alleged defamatory remark that Civil Service
Constabulary Captain Cirilo Legaspi, who had been
Commission was a hangout for a thief or for thieves but
notified of the incident, immediately ordered the seizure
the refusal of Moncayo to change his report so as to favor
of Jose V. Reyes' revolver which was found in a box in the
Benito. Benito did not act primarily to vindicate an
latter's house, while he, accompanied by his brother
alleged grave offense to himself but mainly to chastise
Emilio Reyes, was being treated by the doctor.
Moncayo for having exposed the alleged anomalies or
ISSUE:
Is there a mitigating circumstance? said: "Don't do that," whereupon Current jumped into
the room, hiding himself behind the partition, just as
HELD:
Hicks drew his revolver and fired at Agustina Sola who
No. It has been shown that when the said defendant fired was close by in the sala of the house. The bullet struck
at Jose V. Reyes, the aggression had already ceased and, her in the left side of the breast; she fell to the ground,
therefore, the motive for defense; and in firing at his and died in a little more than an hour later.
victim, the defendant's intention could not have been
Hicks immediately fled from the house and gave himself
only to repel the aggression against his father but also to
up to the chief of police of the town, H. L. Martin, asking
kill Jose V. Reyes. Therefore, the intention of the
him to lock him up in jail; and, when a few minutes later
defendant Leovigildo David to kill Jose V. Reyes is
a policeman came running in and reported that Hicks and
obvious.
fired a shot at Agustina, the said chief of police caused
Hicks to be arrested. The latter, when once in jail, threw
eight revolver cartridges out of the window; these were
picked up by a policeman who reported the occurrence
and delivered the cartridges to chief.

US VS HICKS

FACTS: ISSUE:

For about five years, from September, 1902, to Is there a mitigating circumstance?
November, 1907, Augustus Hicks, an Afro-American, and HELD:
Agustinal Sola, a Christian Moro woman, illicitly lived
together in the municipality of Parang, Cotabato, Moro No mitigating circumstance is present, not even that
Province, until trouble arising between them in the last- mentioned in paragraph 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code,
mentioned month of 1907, Agustina quitted Hick's to wit, loss of reason and self-control produced by
house, and, separating from him, went to live with her jealousy as alleged by the defense, inasmuch as the only
brother-in-law, Lues Corrales. A few days later she causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the
contracted new relations with another negro named loss of self-control are such as originate from legitimate
Wallace Current, a corporal in the Army who then went feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy,
to live with her in the said house. and immoral passions.

On the 21st of December following, at about 7.30 p. m.,

Augustus Hicks together with a soldier named Lloyd
SANICO VS CA
Nickens called at said house, and from the sala called out
to his old mistress who was in her room with Corporal The accused who raped a woman is not entitled to the
Current, and after conversing with her in the Moro mitigating circumstance of "having acted upon an
dialect for a few minutes, asked the corporal appeared at impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
the door of the room, and after a short conversation, passion" just because he finds himself in a secluded place
Current approached Hicks and they shook hands, when with that young ravishing woman, almost naked, and
Hicks asked him the following question: "Did I not tell you therefore, "liable to succumb to the uncontrollable
to leave this woman alone?," to which Current replied: passion of his bestial instinct."
"That is all right, she told me that she did not want to live
with you any longer, but if she wishes, she may quit me,
and you can live with her." The accused then replied: US VS DELA CRUZ
"God damn, I have made up my mind;" and as Corporal
Current saw that Hicks, when he said this, was drawing a FACTS:
revolver from his trousers' pocket, he caught him by the
hand, but the latter, snatching his hand roughly away,
Dela Cruz in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, and justifiable desire of the defendant, as a father, to
who had theretofore been his querida (concubine or prevent his child, which was then ill, from being given a
lover) upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal bath. If, under the circumstances, he transgressed the
communication with a mutual acquaintance. law by an unjust attack on his wife, he is, nevertheless,
deserving of the mitigating circumstances allowed in his
ISSUE:
favor.
Is there a mitigating circumstance?

HELD:
PEOPLE VS DAWATON
Yes. The impulse upon which defendant acted and which
FACTS:
naturally "produced passion and obfuscation" was not
that the woman declined to have illicit relations with On 20 September 1998 Esmeraldo Cortez was
him, but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to entertaining visitors in his house in Sitio Garden, Brgy.
him, and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of Paltic, Dingalan, Aurora. His brother-in-law Edgar
another. As said by the supreme court of Spain in the Dawaton and kumpadre Leonides Lavares dropped by at
above cited decision, this was a "sufficient impulse" in about 12:00 o'clock noon followed by Domingo Reyes
the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the shortly after. All three (3) guests of Esmeraldo were
passion and obfuscation which the law declares to be residents of Sitio Garden. They started drinking soon
one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into after. At about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon and after
consideration by the court. having consumed four (4) bottles of gin, they went to the
house of Amado Dawaton, Edgar's uncle, located about
PEOPLE VS RABAO
twenty (20) meters away from Esmeraldo's house. They
FACTS: stayed at the balcony of the house and continued
drinking. Amado Dawaton was not in.
The defendant and the deceased Salvacion Agawa were
married; they have a child. Since their marriage they had Already drunk, Leonides decided to sleep on a papag or
made their home in the house of Urbano Rellora, who wooden bench, lying down on his right side facing
lived maritally with the mother of the accused. On the Domingo and Edgar using his right hand for a pillow.
morning of December 15, 1937, when the defendant was Edgar, Domingo and Esmeraldo continued drinking until
hardly awake after staying up late the previous night on they finished another bottle of gin.
account of the elections held in the municipality of Naga,
At about 3:30 in the afternoon, twenty (20) minutes after
he noticed that his wife was preparing water with which
Leonides had gone to sleep, Edgar stood up and left for
to give the child a bath. He told his wife not to bathe the
his house. When he returned he brought with him a
child because it had a cold. but the wife insisted and a
stainless knife. Without a word, he approached Leonides
quarrel arose in the heat of which the accused punched
who was sleeping and stabbed him near the base of his
his wife on the abdomen. She fell seated on a sack of rice
neck.[4] Awakened and surprised, Leonides got up and
nearby and immediately suffered an attack of which she
blurted: "Bakit Pare, bakit?"[5] Instead of answering,
died in spite of the aid rendered her by the accused
Edgar again stabbed Leonides on the upper part of his
himself and other persons who had arrived.
neck, spilling blood on Leonides' arm.
ISSUE:
Leonides attempted to flee but Edgar who was much
Is there a mitigating circumstance? bigger grabbed the collar of his shirt and thus effectively
prevented him from running away. Edgar then
HELD: repeatedly stabbed Leonides who, despite Edgar's firm
Yes. The defendant did not really have the intention of hold on him, was still able to move about twenty (20)
committing so grave a crime as parricide. The quarrel meters away from the house of Amado Dawaton before
that led to the aggression had its origin from the natural he fell to the ground at the back of Esmeraldo's house.
But even then, Edgar still continued to stab him. Edgar
only stopped stabbing Leonides when the latter already Nor can the accused avail of the mitigating circumstance
expired. Edgar then ran away towards the house of his of voluntary surrender as he himself admitted that he
uncle Carlito Baras situated behind the cockpit. was arrested at his uncle's residence.[18] The following
elements must be present for voluntary surrender to be
Domingo and Esmeraldo were positioned a few meters
appreciated: (a) the offender has not been actually
away from where Leonides was sleeping when he was
arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a
initially assaulted by Edgar. They were shocked by what
person in authority, and, (c) the surrender must be
happened but other than pleading for Edgar to stop they
voluntary.
were unable to help Leonides.
Resorting to sophistry, the accused argues that he was
Domingo left for his house soon after the stabbing
not arrested but "fetched" as he voluntarily went with
started as he did not want to get involved. Nonetheless
the policemen when they came for him. This attempt at
he felt pity for Leonides so he returned a few minutes
semantics is futile and absurd. That he did not try to
later.
escape or resist arrest after he was taken into custody by
By then, Leonides was already dead and people had the authorities did not amount to voluntary surrender. A
already gathered at the site. The mayor who was in a surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing
nearby cement factory arrived and instructed them not the intent of the accused to submit himself
to go near the body. They pointed to the direction where unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
Edgar fled. Edgar was later arrested at the house of his acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save
uncle, Carlito Baras, at Sitio Aves, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan. them the trouble and expense necessarily included in his
search and capture. It is also settled that voluntary
The conclusion that accused-appellant murdered surrender cannot be appreciated where the evidence
Leonides Lavares was sufficiently proved by the adduced shows that it was the authorities who came
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Domingo Reyes looking for the accused.
and Esmeraldo Cortez who both witnessed the fatal
stabbing. This was not refuted by the accused himself Moreover, the evidence submitted by the prosecution
who admitted that he stabbed the victim three (3) times belies the claim of the accused that he intended to
before his mind went blank and could no longer recall submit himself to the authorities. The joint affidavit of
what he did after that. the arresting officers, the veracity of which was admitted
by the parties and evidenced by a 20 October 1999 Order
ISSUE: of the trial court, revealed that they chanced upon the
Is there a mitigating circumstance? accused trying to escape from the rear of the cockpit
building when they came looking for him.
HELD:
Similarly, there is no factual basis to credit the accused
No. While the accused offered to plead guilty to the with the mitigating circumstance of outraged feeling
lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with murder analogous or similar to passion and obfuscation. Other
for which he had already entered a plea of not guilty. It than his self-serving allegations, there was no evidence
was ruled that an offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser that the victim threatened him with a grenade. Domingo
offense cannot be considered as an attenuating Reyes and Esmeraldo Cortez testified that there was no
circumstance under the provisions of Art. 13 of The prior altercation or disagreement between Edgar and
Revised Penal Code because to be voluntary the plea of Leonides during the drinking spree, and they did not
guilty must be to the offense charged. know of any reason for Edgar's hostility and violence. On
Furthermore, Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules of the contrary, Esmeraldo Cortez even recalled seeing the
Criminal Procedure requires the consent of the offended two (2) in a playful banter (lambingan) during the course
party and the prosecutor before an accused may be of their drinking indicating that the attack on the accused
allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense necessarily was completely unexpected.
included in the offense charged. The prosecution
rejected the offer of the accused.
PEOPLE VS VIERNES The victim, Thelma Subosa, was the mother of 14
children with her deceased husband, Primo Subosa.
FACTS:
Subsequently, she cohabited with her common-law
Catherine, 12, was raped by his mother’s common-law husband Warlito Huesca and lived together with some of
husband. The third rape happened in appellant's house her children in Brgy. Janipa-an, Oeste, New Lucena, Ilo-
in Tibig, Lipa City, around noontime of August 18, 1997. ilo. Thereafter, Warlito Huesca also died.
Appellant then bidded the two brothers and a step-
In the early morning of June 14, 1993, a day after Warlito
brother of Catherine Linatoc to clean the his tricycle,
was buried, the victim, her children namely, Ellyn,
which was parked on the side of the street across his
Roselyn, Evelyn, Manilyn, Leopoldo and Lilibeth, and
house. They followed his order. Appellant also instructed
Milagros Huesca, the younger sister of Warlito Huesca,
Catherine Linatoc to fetch water for the house toilet. She
were awakened by the forcible opening of the door of
obliged, returning with two pails of it. She deposited
their house. Four men entered the house and declared a
them by the door of the toilet. Turning about, Catherine
"hold up". The victim pleaded not to be harmed. Instead,
Linatoc was surprised to find appellant behind her. In
accused Ronnie Abolidor tied her mouth with a
quick succession, appellant pushed her to the wall, pulled
handkerchief to silence her. Then appellant Claudio
her skirts up, drag her panty mid-way her lower leg, and
Barcimo, Jr. shot the victim several times causing her
rushed his own pants down. Grasping her hands tightly
instantaneous death.
with one hand, appellant began inserting his penis into
her vagina. She resisted to no avail. His penis established ISSUE:
a comfortable slide into and out of her [organ], as the
Is there a mitigating circumstance?
pace quickened for about three minutes. The gyration
was furious. After appellant spurted out, he backed off HELD:
and left saying nothing.
Yes. To benefit an accused, the following requisites must
Frightened and crying, Catherine Linatoc went to her be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been
great-grandmother's abode in San Guillermo, Lipa City. arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a
She reported the incident to this elder, and recounted person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.
some more. Catherine Linatoc told her great- A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous,
grandmother of two other acts of sexual abuse by showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
appellant. unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the
ISSUE:
trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search
Is there a mitigating circumstance? and capture. Voluntary surrender presupposes
repentance.[22] In People v. Viernes,[23] we held that
HELD:
going to the police station to clear one's name does not
No. The act of surrender must be spontaneous, show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the
accompanied by an acknowledgment of guilt, or an authorities.
intention to save the authorities the trouble and the
In the case at bar, appellant surrendered to the
expense that search and capture would require. Going to
authorities after more than one year had lapsed since the
the police station "to clear his name" does not show any
incident and in order to disclaim responsibility for the
intent of appellant to surrender unconditionally to the
killing of the victim. This neither shows repentance or
authorities.
acknowledgment of the crime nor intention to save the
government the trouble and expense necessarily
incurred in his search and capture. Besides, at the time
PEOPLE VS ABOLIDOR of his surrender, there was a pending warrant of arrest
FACTS: against him.[24] Hence, he should not be credited with
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.