People vs Gonzalez

Facts:
In the afternoon of October 31, 1998 at about 2:30 pm when the car of the private complainant, Noel
Andres, and the car of the accused-appellant, Inoncencio Gonzalez, almost collided. Andres continued to
drive, and he found an opportunity to cut off Gonzalez. Then the appellant got out of his car and he
cursed at Gonzalez. When the son of Gonzalez arrived at the scene, he had confronted Andres and that is
where the altercation began. Gonzalez feared for the life of his son, so he took out his automatic Glock
caliber 9mm pistol. Gonzalez had alleged that he accidentally fired the gun because his daughter tried to
take the gun. The bullet had hit the pregnant wife of Andres, the son of Andres and the nephew of Andres.
The wife of the appellant had died while his son and nephew suffered from physical injuries. On
November 4, 1998 an information for the complex crime of murder, double frustrated murder and
attempted murder where filed against Gonzalez. The RTC ruled that the shooting was attended by a
qualifying circumstance of treachery based on the perspective that once a gun is drawn against a person,
the means, methods, and forms employed for its execution is already conceived; And once it s tended
directly and specifically to ensure its execution, it produces the conscious and deliberate intention. Thus,
convicting the accused-appellant of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder and
attempted murder which sentence him to suffer the maximum penalty of death by lethal injection.

Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred when it found there was treachery
Whether or not the RTC failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, lack
of intention to a commit a grave so wrong and provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act, incomplete defense of a relative and voluntary surrender.

Held:
YES. The determining factor for treachery is not the result of the crime instead it is the mode of attack
employed in its execution. The prosecution was not able to establish that the accused-appellant
deliberately positioned himself behind the victim to gain advantage over the victim when he fired the
shot. The court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning that loading and cocking of the gun constitute
treachery. According to the SC, ‘a single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stages to make it
appear that treachery was involved.’

No. The mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, for it to be considered it must show that: the
unlawful act is sufficient to produce passion was committed by the victim; the crim was committed within
a reasonable length of time from the commission of unlawful act that produced obfuscation in the
accused’s mind; and that the passion arose from lawful sentiment and not revenge. Andres’ shouting at
the accused-appellant’s son is not sufficient to have produced passion or obfuscation. The mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be invoked because the aggressive behavior of Noel Andres
toward them may be demeaning but it is not sufficient to shoot the complainant’s vehicle. The mitigating
circumstance for an incomplete defense of a relative is also unmeritorious because the act of Andres of
shouting and cursing does not amount to n unlawful aggression. Lastly, the mitigating circumstance of
lack of intent commit so grave a wrong is also devoid of merit. It is because there is a notable disparity
between the means employed by the accused to a commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed.

People vs Pagal
Facts:
Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino conspired, confederated, and mutually helped each other, to take P1,281
from Guan Guan by means of violence and with an intent to gain. The accused entered a plea of guilty for
them to able to prove the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended
party immediately preceded the act and that having acted upon an impulse so power as to produce passion
and obfuscation. By pleading guilty, the accused is deemed to have admitted all the material facts alleged
in the information.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred for failing to appreciate mitigating circumstances presented by the
appellants.
Whether or not the trial court erred for considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, evident
premeditation, and disregard of the respect by the appellants due to the offended party on the account of
his rank and age.

Held:
No. The alleged provocation was the alleged maltreatment of the deceased to the appellants. The
appellant claims that the maltreatment had happened on a much earlier date than the date of the
commission of the crime. Also, for provocation to be a mitigating circumstance it must have been
sufficient and immediately preceded the act. The crime could not have produced passion or obfuscation
for it had been planned and meditated before its execution. Hence, it was only proper that the trial court
did not recognized any mitigating circumstance in favor the appellants.
Yes. The court disagrees with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and disregard of
respect on the account of rank and age. In the complex crime of robbery with homicide, the prosecution
must be able to prove that the plan was not only to rob but also to kill. The original plan of the appellant
was only to rob and that they had killed the deceased when he refused to cooperate with them. The
aggravating of circumstance of disregard to the respect of the offended party is unmeritorious because it
is a crime against property. Homicide was only a mere incident of the crime. It is only proper to consider
the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
Urbano vs People
That on or about 28th of September 1993, Brigido Tomelden, the victim and Rodel Urbano, the petitioner
was at the compound of LIWAD and they came from a picnic where they drunk beer. The two had an
altercation in which Tomelden hurled insulting remarks. The exchange of words led to an exchange of
blows. The petitioner then delivered a ‘lucky punch.’ The petitioner brought Tomelden to the office of the
LIWAD general manager in which the victim had spent the night. The following day the victim
complained of a pain in his nape, head, and ear. The victim’s lacerated index finger, contusions, and
hematoma at the right cerebrum. On October 2 and 7, 1993, Tomelden went to the hospital with a
complaint of dizziness, headache and other pains. On October 8, 1993, Tomeldan was diagnosed that he
was suffering from brain injury, secondary to mauling to consider cerebral hemorrhage. The victim was
discharged from the hospital despite negating physical condition improvement due to financial constraint.
The same day of the victim’s discharged he had died due to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral
concussion with resultant cerebral hemorrhage. The petitioner had denied his intension to kill and the
death of Tomelden is due to hypertension was the cause of his death.

Issue:
Whether or not trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation
on the part of victim and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Held:
Yes. The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party is
appreciated because Tomelden had provoked the petitioner. The petitioner had a good sense of trying to
avoid the fight because Tomelden was larger than him. Tomelden allegedly slapped and hurled insults at
him by calling him sipsip. The SC was convinced that the insulting remarks of Tomelden constituted of
sufficient provocation. The mitigating circumstance that petitioner had no intention to commit so grace a
wrong as that committed was also appreciated in his favor. The lucky punch ended the fight in which
Tomelden had died because of that. Tomelden’s could have been averted only f he had the financial
means to receive the proper medical attention. The petitioner is still guilty of homicide. However, there
were two mitigating circumstance appreciated in his favor.

People vs Benito
Facts:
Pedro Moncayo Jr., Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction and Acting Chief of the Administrative
Division of Civil Service Commission, the victim while driving was shot eight times with a .22 caliber
revolver by Alberto Benito, the accused. The accused was charged with a crime of murder in which he
pleaded guilty without prejudice to proving mitigating circumstances. The Court had sentenced Benito to
death after finding him guilty as principal in the crime of murder qualified treachery, with the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account
of his rank.

Issues:
Whether or not the court erred for not considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Whether or not the court erred for not considering the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation
on the part of the offended party.
Held:
Yes. The accused could have immediately escaped after killing the victim. However, he stayed there to
call up the Manila Police Department. The accused volunteered himself that he would help with case for
he knew the suspect. He may not have immediately confessed but his actions where strong indication of
his intent to voluntary surrender.
No. According to the accused, the victim said an alleged remark that Civil Service Commission is a
hangout of thieves. The accused felt alluded for he was facing criminal and administrative charges. The
alleged remark had happened at 11am of December 12, 1969 while the crime of murder was committed
about 5:30pm. The act of killing did not immediately precede the alleged remark of the victim. The
failure of the accused to immediately react to the supposed insulting remark is taken as ignored or
unimportant.