G.R. No.

L-45100             October 26, 1936

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-

appellee,
vs.
EPIFANIO DIOKNO and ROMAN DIOKNO, defendants-
appellants.

Facts: 
At around 7 in the morning, in January, 1935, Salome Diokno asked her
lover, Yu Hiong, to take her with him. In the afternoon on the same day, the
couple took an automobile and headed for Pagbilao, where one of Salome’s
cousins lived. The relative was not home, so the couple went to San Pablo,
Laguna. They stayed at the house of one Antonio Layco.
After a day or two, Epifanio, father of Salome, was informed by his son,
Roman, through a telegraph that Salome was missing. The two very worried
men began a search and then learned of their stay at Laguna. They proceeded to
the house of one Antonio Layco, and immediately saw Yu Hiong descending
the steps of the house. They ran up to him and caught him. Yu Hiong sank to his
knees; begging for forgiveness. But the Diokno’s, understandably raging over
their girl’s abduction, inflicted a total of five stab wounds on Yu Hiong with
their balisongs. Epifanio would’ve killed Yu Hiong on the spot, were it not for
the timely intervention of Roman, who said: “Enough, father!”
Antonio Layco saw the barely conscious Yu Hiong, called the police, and the
two men were apprehended. They were found guilty of murder and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua by the court of First Instance of Laguna

 ISSUES
1. Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the Dioknos of murder
aggravated by evident premeditation
2. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense
3. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation
4. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender
HELD:
1. Yes, the Dioknos are guilty only of HOMICIDE.
There was no aggravating circumstances attendant to the commission of the
killing. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the intention to kill must be
manifest and it must have been planned in the mind of the offender and
carefully meditated. It is not enough that it arose at the moment of the
aggression. For this reason, it is imperative to determine when the offender
decided to commit the crime.
1. Yes. While the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication can be
considered, for the following reasons:
2. Although what the law requires is that the vindication for the grave
offense be done proximately to the later, the case at hand dealt with a
continuing offense. Note that the whereabouts of their beloved Salome
were unknown to them, before they discovered Layco’s house in Laguna
three days later. In the course of the three days, the men were subjected to
mental and emotional tortures that lasted until the men came face to face
with Yu Hiong. Therefore, there was no interruption between the offense
against the honor of the Dioknos and the vindication. They, therefore, had
no sufficient time to recover their serenity, they constantly suffered from
the wrong.
3. The determination of the gravity of a offense to somewhat deserve
vindication may be ascertained from the following:
i. The social standing of the person or his social, economic, educational, and
cultural background. This also includes his age and his sex.
ii. The time when the offense against him was made
iii. The place when the offense was made
In this case at hand, the Supreme Court considered the family or cultural
background of the Dioknos. The Dioknos were a traditional family, where
the elopement of an unmarried couple is considered immoral and an attack
against the family name and honor.
1. Yes. the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was also
properly appreciated by the Supreme Court. The men
were understandably furious at the sudden disappearance of a family
member; and when Yu Hiong ran upstairs when he saw the Dioknos, the
unfortunate Chinese incensed the men by impliedly refusing to deal with
them and at the same time admitting that he had committed against them
a grave wrong.
2. Yes. While the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was also
considered by the SC for Epifanio. When approached by the policeman
Curabo, Epifanio immediately admitted that he had stabbed Yu Hiong.
He also surrender his balisong to the policeman and offered no resistance
in being taken to the police station.
The same circumstance cannot be afforded to Roman Epifanio, who fled before
the policeman, Curabo, arrived. This however further proves that the father also
had ample time to escape – but instead, he did not. A clear indication of
willingness to surrender.
NOTE:
There were two dissenting opinions. One by Diaz, the other by Laurel. Laurel
makes a good point. He dissented in the appreciation of the mitigating
circumstance of vindication: Because Salome and Yu Hiong were already of
legal age. Under existing legislation, a woman eighteen years of age or over can
contract marriage without the consent of her parents. Therefore, there was no
offense committed against the Dioknos if the laws are to be taken into
consideration.
Laurel assails that the interpretation of grave offenses should keep up with the
times. According to him, eloping is now common in supposedly ‘conservative’
Philippine society. And to afford the Dioknos the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance, in consideration of the prevailing customs was not realistic on the
part of the court. In addition, it was Salome who invited Yu Hiong to elope.
Thus, Yu Hiong did no wrong.