People vs Pajares (GR No.

96444 | June 23, 1992)

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Leandro Pajares
Ponente: Justice Paras
Appeal from Decision of RTC  
Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense
SUMMARY: Leandro Pajares was convicted of reclusion perpetua for the crime of
murder and slight physical injuries. He filed an appeal asking for modification of his
sentence, since his crime was done as vindication of a grave offense. Court ruled that
such mitigating circumstance is not applicable in his case, because it was not
immediate to the offense done by the victim to his family.
FACTS:
• Appellant Pajares was charged with one count each of murder and frustrated
homicide.
• Background: Victims and accused were members of rival groups.
• Prosecution’s Version:
o Perez was walking with deceased Viojan towards a store in Paco, Manila.
They were walking abreast with each other, with the deceased at his right
side, and a bit ahead of him. Appellant suddenly appeared from behind
and hit Viojan with a baseball bat at the back of his head. Viojan ran and
fell down near the store, and Perez tried to help him. However, Pajares
also attacked him with the bat. He tried grappled with Pajares for
possession of the bat, but he was mauled by the appellant’s companions,
until he lost consciousness.
• Defense’ Version:
o Denied allegations. Claimed he was inside the store when the incident
happened, and that together with about 8 other people, he was watching
television so he was not able to see who attacked the victims. After the
incident, he went home and slept. At 3:30 am the next day, he was
arrested inside their house. He was taken to the police station and was
coerced to admit his participation in the crime (held at the back of his shirt,
“pinitik-pitik” with rubber bands, and karate chopped by policemen).
• RTC found him guilty of murder (Viojan), and slight physical injuries (Perez), and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and 1 month imprisonment, respectively.
• In his appeal, he asked for mitigating circumstances of: (claimed that his
sentence should have been 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day)
o Vindication of a grave offense- claims that Viojan’s group mauled his
brother prior to the incident.
o Minority- 19 years old at the time of the commission of the crime.

ISSUE/S:
 • WoN RTC gravely erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon him.
HELD:
• NO.
o Court affirmed the appellant’s guilt. His defense was by nature an alibi, but
he was not able to successfully raise it. His house was near the scene of
the crime, thus it was possible for him to be physically present during the
mauling of Diojan and Perez. He was also positively identified by witness
Perez. Rulign that treachery was present is correct, because he hit the
victims from behind without possibile retaliation from victims.
o Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense
cannot be appreciated in his favor because 10 hours elapsed between
such incident and his killing of Viojan. There was enough time for Pajares
to recover his serenity.
o Mitigating circumstance of minority claimed by appellant was not
discussed in the ponencia.

RULING:
• Decision appealed from is affirmed. Indemnity increased to Php 50,000.