Criminal Law 1

102 PEOPLE v. URAL

Aggravating Circumstances

Court Supreme Court

Citation G.R. No. L-30801
Date 27 March 1974
Plaintiff- People of the Philippines
Appellee
Accused- Domingo Ural
Appellant
Ponente AQUINO
Relevant topic Article 14. Aggravating Circumstances. – The following are
aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

FACTS:

- Appeal of judgment from the CFI of Zamboanga del Sur convicting appellant of murder by
means of fire (incendio) (Par. 3, Art. 248, RPC) and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
for the murder of Felix Napola, which judgment was based on the testimony of Brigido
Alberio, who saw appellant Ural, a policeman, boxing the prisoner Felix Napola inside the
jail.
o As a consequence of the fistic blows, Napola collapsed on the floor. Ura stepped on
his prostrate body.
o Ural went out of the cell, then went back a while later and poured the contents of a
bottle on Napola’s body. Then he ignited it with a math and left the cell. Nobody
came in to help him.
- Perturbed by what he just saw, Alberto left. Before his departure, Ural warned him to
keep quiet about what he has done.

o A few days after separating, Agustina contracted new relations with Wallace
Current, a corporal in the Army then went on to live with him at Agustina’s
residence.
- Dr. Luzonia R. Bakil, the municipal health officer, certified that the victim sustained 2 nd-
degree burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face, and one-half of the body including
the back. She testified that if the burns were not properly treated, death would ensue
from toxemia and tetanus infection.
- Napola died on August 25, 1966, with “burn” as the cause of death.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #1 HELD
Whether or not there was an aggravating circumstance. YES.

RATIO:

The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position (Par. 1, Art.
14, Revised Penal Code). He could not have maltreated Napola if he was not a policeman on
guard duty. Because of his position, he had access to the cell where Napola was confined The
prisoner was under his custody. "The policeman, who taking advantage of his public position
maltreats a private citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval
practice are surely not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law
protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just as
effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police."

Page 1 of 2
Criminal Law 1
102 PEOPLE v. URAL
Aggravating Circumstances

But the trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance "that the offender had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed" (Par. 3, Art. 13, Revised Penal code).
It is manifest from the proven facts that appellant Ural had no intent to kill Napola. His design
was only to maltreat him may be because in his drunken condition he was making a nuisance of
himself inside the detention cell. When Ural realized the fearful consequences of his felonious
act, he allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary. Lack of intent
to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of abuse of his official
position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium
period of the penalty for murder (Arts. 64[4] and 248, Revised Penal Code).

RULING:

Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the same is affirmed with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

Page 2 of 2