PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE RABANILLO y MAGALONG.

1. WON the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.

FACTS:
In the afternoon of August 9, 1996, appellant Rabanillo, the victim Raul Morales, prosecution witnesses
Perfecto Suarez, Samuel Magalong, and Ramil Morales, and several other persons were having a
drinking spree. Later on, participants in the drinking session were splashing each other with water.
Rabanillo, the accused, however, drenched the victim, Morales, which triggered a fistfight between
them. The two were pacified by the others and were ushered into their respective homes.
Half an hour after the fistfight, while Morales, Suarez, and one Mauro Pascua were having a
“conversion” in the terrace of the house of Morales, Rabanillo went out of his house wielding a one-
meter samurai, went straight to Morales and hacked him several times. Morales died.
As to what transpired next, the prosecution and the defense had different versions.
Version of the prosecution:
Thirty minutes after the fisticuff, while MORALES, Suarez, and one Mauro Pascua were having a
conversation in the terrace of the house of MORALES, RABANILLO went out of his house wielding a
one-meter samurai.
2. WON there was evident premeditation? No.
3. WON the accused used abuse of superior strength. No.
4. WON there was passion and obfuscation? No.
5. WON there is treachery? No.
6. WON accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? No.
RULING:
1. No. To be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication should be proved or established by sufficient
evidence. It should be such an intoxication that would diminish or impair the exercise of his willpower or
the capacity to know the injustice of his act.
The accused must then show that:
(1) at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to
blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of self-control; and
(2) such intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

RABANILLO went straight to MORALES and hacked him, the latter parried the blow, but he was hit on In this case, Rabanillo stated that he joined his friends in a drinking session for a short time. After
his right hand. When he attempted to run away, he tripped and fell down to the ground. drinking, he helped his daughter-in-law sell cooked food and was able to clean the house. The fact that
At this point, RABANILLO hacked him two times more, hitting him at his back and left shoulder and he was able to resume his routine work belies his claim that he was heavily drunk at the time he
caused his death attacked the victim.Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.

Version of the Defense: There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance established in this case, Rabanillo is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
Appellant heard Raul Morales, then in the terrace of their house shouting and challenging him to come
out.

Appellant, irked by the challenge, emerged from his house with a bolo on hand and attacked Raul
Morales and killed him in the process.

Thereafter, accompanied by the barangay captain, he went to the Town hall of Mangaldan,
Pangasinan, and surrendered.

The trial court found Rabanillo guilty of the crime of murder attended by the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation and generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
superior strength.

ISSUES: