No.

L-3246
November 29, 1950

The People of the Philippines, plaintiff and appellee

Vs.
Abelardo Formigones, defendant and appellant

ISSUE
Formigones is an imbecile and therefore exempted from criminal liability under Article 12 of
the RPC.

Appeal from judgement of the Court of First Instance. (Alberto is guilty of parricide)

RULING
Appellant (Formigones) guilty of parricide and SC affirms the judgement of lower court with
the modification that Formigones will be credited with one-half of any preventive
imprisonment he has undergone – reduced penalty from reclusion perpetua to death.
Appellant will pay cost.

FACTS
- Nov. 1946, Alberto Formigones (appellant) with his wife, Julia Agricola, and five
children moved to live in the house of this half-brother, Zacarias Formigones.
- Formigones moves his family to Sipocot, to find employment as harvester of palay.
- Dec. 28, 1946, late afternoon, took his bolo and stabbed his wife Julia in the back –
wife died.
- The wife fell in the stairs where she was sitting before she was stabbed.
- Alberto Fomigones carried his wife up the house and laid her on the living room floor
and lay down beside her. (This is how people found them)
- Irene Formigones, witness the stabbing and shouted for help.
- Alberto signed a written statement wherein he admitted of killing his wife (during
constabulary investigation).
- Alberto’s motive for killing his wife was due to jealousy. Alberto suspected his wife
and brother (Zacarias) are having an affair.
- Zacarias was living in he’s grandmother but he frequently visits Alberto and his
family. Zacarias would also spend the night there. This aroused the suspicions of
Alberto.
- Preliminary investigation conducted by justice of peace of Sipocot, Alberto pleaded
guilty.
- Trial case in the court of first instance, Alberto entered a plea of not guilty.
o Counsel of Alberto presented a testimony of two jail guard that Alberto
behaved like an insane person – he removes his clothes and goes naked in
the prison; sometimes he would remain silent and indifferent in his
surroundings; he refuses to take a bath and wash his clothes until forced by
the guards; he would sing with his fellow prisoners or alone.
 o Dr. Francisco Gomez, examined Alberto and in his opinion, Alberto is
suffering from feeblemindedness and is not an imbecile and that he knows
what is right and wrong.
o Trial court rejected that Alberto is an imbecile and is excepted from criminal
liability under Article 12 of the RPC.
o Trial court’s ruling the same as the lower court.

- Article 12 of RPC – to be excepted from criminal liability, Alberto must be deprived

completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will when he committed
the crime. Imbecility or insanity at the time of the commission of act should be
absolutely deprived as a person of intelligence or freedom of will. Mere abnormality
of his mental faculties is not excepted.
- Deaf-mute does not equal to imbecility or insanity.
- Allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proven.
- Strange behavior of Alberto is attributed to him being feebleminded or his remorse
for having killed his wife.
- A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy and take violent measures of killing his
wife, whom her suspected of being unfaithful, could hardly be regarded as an
imbecile.
- However, the court sympathizes Alberto for being feebleminded (lack of mental
powers).
- Paragraph 2, rule 3 of Article 63 of RPC provides that when the commission to act is
attended by some mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
- Mitigating circumstances
o The fact that Alberto is feebleminded warrants the finding in his favor of the
mitigating circumstances provided in either paragraph 8 or 9 of article 13 of
RPC. - “suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
action, defense or communication with his fellow being,” or such illness “as
would diminish the exercise of his will power”
o additional mitigating circumstance, paragraph 6 or article 13 – “that of having
acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation. – Alberto killed his wife due to jealousy.
SOLOMON VERDADERO Y GALERA v. PEOPLE

GR No. 216021 Mar 02, 2016

Facts:

Solomon Verdadero was charged with the crime of murder for killing Romeo B.
Plata. On June 3, 2011, Verdadero was arraigned and pleaded "Not Guilty." During
the pre-trial, he invoked the defense of insanity.

The evidence of the prosecution tended to establish that Maynard and his father
Romeo went to the Baggao Police Station. Together with Ronnie Elaydo, to report
that Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation pump. After a confrontation
with Verdadero at the police station, the three men made their way home on a
tricycle but stopped at a drugstore. Romeo proceeded towards a store near the
drugstore while Ronnie stayed inside the tricycle. From the drug store, Maynard saw
Verdadero stabbing Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of Ronnie.

Ronnie ran towards the police station to seek assistance. The responding police
officers arrested Verdadero, while Maynard and Ronnie brought Romeo to a clinic
but were advised to bring him to the Cagayan Valley Medical Center (CVMC).
Romeo, however, died upon arrival at the CVMC. Based on the Post-Mortem
Examination Report, his cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to
severe hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds and hack wounds.

The evidence for the defense did not refute the material allegations but revolved
around Verdadero's alleged insanity. On July 21, 2003, he was diagnosed with
schizophrenia and was given medications to address his mental illness. Verdadero
would irregularly consult with his doctors as he had a lifelong chronic disease. Then,
in 2009, he was again confined for the fourth (4th) time at CVMC due to a relapse.

Acting on the January 4, 2011 Order of the RTC, Dr. Ethel Maureen Pagaddu (Dr.
Pagaddu) conducted a mental examination on Verdadero. She confirmed that as
early as 1999, he was already brought to CVMC and that he was diagnosed with
schizophrenia on July 21, 2003. Dr. Pagaddu agreed with Dr. Andres-Juliana that
Verdadero had suffered a relapse on the day of the stabbing incident.

On May 30, 2013, the RTC rendered a decision finding Verdadero guilty for the
crime of homicide. The trial court, however, opined that Verdadero failed to establish
insanity as an exempting circumstance. The trial court posited that Verdadero was
unsuccessful in establishing that he was not in a lucid interval at the time he stabbed
Romeo or that he was completely of unsound mind prior to or coetaneous with the
commission of the crime.

Verdadero appealed before the CA. the CA upheld Verdadero's conviction of

homicide. The appellate court agreed that the defense was able to establish that
Verdadero had a history of schizophrenic attacks, but was unable to prove that he
was not lucid at the time of the commission of the offense.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE FACT THAT VERDADERO’S INSANITY AT THE TIME

OF THE INCIDENT WAS ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE.

Decision:

The Court finds that Verdadero sufficiently proved that he was insane at the time of
the stabbing. It is true that there is no direct evidence to show Verdadero's mental
state at the exact moment the crime was committed. This, however, is not fatal to the
finding that he was insane. His insanity may still be shown by circumstances
immediately before and after the incident. Further, the expert opinion of the
psychiatrist Dr. Pagaddu may also be taken into account. Dr. Pagaddu categorically
testified that Verdadero was suffering a relapse at the time of the stabbing incident.

Maynard was familiar with Verdadero as the latter was his neighbor for a long time.
He had observed that there were times that Verdadero appeared to be of unsound
mind as he would sometimes become violent. On the day of the stabbing incident,
Maynard perceived that Verdadero was again of unsound mind noting that he had
reddish eyes and appeared to be drunk. Moreover, he was immediately transferred
to the psychiatry department because of his impaired sleep and to control him from
harming himself and others. These circumstances are consistent with Dr. Paggadu's
testimony. The evidence on record supports the finding that Verdadero exhibited
symptoms of a relapse of schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing incident.

The Court grants the petition and ACQUITS accused-appellant Solomon

Verdadero y Galera of Homicide by reason of insanity. He is ordered confined at the
National Center for Mental Health for treatment and shall be released only upon
order of the Regional Trial Court acting on a recommendation from his attending
physicians from the institution.
People of the Philippines
v.
Wilson Cacho y Songco
G.R. No. 218425
September 27, 2017
First Division
Tijam, J.:

NATURE OF THE CASE:

For automatic review is the DecisioN of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal finding Wilson
Cacho y Songco (accused-appellant) guilty of the crimes of Murder and Destructive Arson.
FACTS:
On January 2, 2004, Rodriguez Police Station received a report from a certain Willy Cacho
about a fire in Rodriguez, Rizal. The Bureau of Fire Protection went to Sitio Catmon to verify
said report.

Upon arriving in Sitio Catmon, the police officers saw a burned house, which was owned by
a certain Mario Balbao. Upon investigation, they discovered a burned body of a headless man
underneath an iron sheet. Willy Cacho informed the police officers that it was his brother,
[accused-appellant], who killed Boy. [Accused-appellant's] wife likewise told the police
officers that her husband was a patient of [the] National Center for Mental Health and has a
recurring mental illness.

Thereafter, the police officers went to the house of [accused-appellant] where they saw a
shallow pit measuring one (1) foot in diameter and five (5) inches deep with a steel peg
standing at the center, which they believed was used to bum a head because there were traces
of ash and a human skull on top of the heap of charcoal. The police officers then saw
[accused-appellant] in his backyard. Upon introducing themselves as police officers,
[accused-appellant] acted strangely and exhibited signs of mental illness. According to SPO4
Tavas, [accused-appellant] admitted killing Boy and burning the latter's house but did not say
why he did it.

When they tried to arrest him, [accused-appellant] became wild. The police officers sought
help from other people to subdue [accused-appellant] and to place him inside the mobile car.
[Accused-appellant] was then brought to the prosecutors [sic] office for inquest proceedings.
After the inquest, [accused-appellant] was brought to the National Center for Mental Health
for confinement.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant sufficiently proved his defense of insanity
RULING:
NO. Accused-appellant alleges that he was diagnosed with Major Depression with Psychosis
in 1996 for which he was admitted at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) for two
(2) months. Thereafter, he was discharged when there were no longer any symptom that was
observed. Then on January 7, 2004, he was again admitted to the NCMH and it was
discovered that his Major Depression with Psychosis had already progressed to Chronic
Schizophrenia. Thus, his defense of insanity was sufficiently proved by his medical record
with the NCMH as well as the expert testimony of Dr. Sagun.
Here, while Dr. Sagun testified that accused-appellant was confined at the NCMH in 1996
and that accused-appellant was diagnosed with Major Depression with Psychosis which
progressed to Chronic Schizophrenia, no other evidence was presented to show that accused-
appellant was insane immediately prior to or at the very moment that the crime was
committed. Mere prior confinement into a mental institution does not automatically exonerate
the accused-appellant from criminal liability in the absence of any evidence showing that
accused-appellant was completely deprived of reason immediately prior or at the time of the
commission of the crime. If at all, there is no evidence showing that the mental illness of the
accused-appellant, as narrated by Dr. Sagun, constitutes insanity, in that, there is complete
deprivation of his intelligence in committing the act.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PANTOJA
G.R. No. 223114 November 29, 2017
FACTS:
Prior to the commission of the crime, the accused had already exhibited signs
of mental illness which started manifesting after he was mauled by several persons
in an altercation when he was twenty-one (21) years old. Because of the incident, he
sustained head injuries, which required stitches. No further physical examination was
conducted on him, because they did not have the funds to pay for additional
checkups. Cederina, mother of the accused, observed that his personality had
changed, and he had a hard time sleeping. There was a time when he did not sleep
at all for one week, prompting Cederina to bring the accused-appellant to the
psychiatric department of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). There, the
attending physician diagnosed him with schizophrenia.
On July 14, 2010 at 7:45 in the evening, the accused was able to escape from
the hospital and arrived at their house the day after. Cederina asked herein accused
how he was able to find his way home, the accused responded that he roamed
around until he remembered the track towards their way home. Cederina reported to
PGH that he has custody of his son, the latter advised that she return his son but
was not able to do so because they could not afford the transportation expenses.
On 22 July 2010, at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, Cederina and the
accused-appellant were inside their house. Eventually, she noticed that accused-
appellant was gone. She went outside to look for him and noticed that the front door
of the house where six-year-old AAA resided was open. She then saw accused-
appellant holding a knife and the victim sprawled on the floor, bloodied.
Dr. Nulud testified that he conducted an autopsy on the victim. His
examination revealed that the victim sustained four (4) stab wounds: on his
forehead, his neck, his right shoulder, and below his collar bone. The RTC then
found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE:
Whether accused-appellant has clearly and convincingly proven his defense
of insanity to exempt him from criminal liability
HELD:
The Supreme saw no reason to overturn the decision of the CA. A scrutiny of
the evidence presented by accused-appellant unfortunately fails to establish that he
was completely bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will when he fatally
stabbed the victim. Cederina tends to show that accused-appellant exhibited signs of
mental illness only after being injured in an altercation in 2003; that she observed
changes in his personality and knew he had difficulty sleeping since then; that
accused-appellant was confined in the hospital a few times over the years for his
mental issues; and that he was confined at the NCMH on 8 July 2010 from where he
subsequently escaped. Nothing in her testimony pointed to any behavior of the
accused-appellant at the time of the incident in question, or in the days and hours
before the incident, which could establish that he was insane when he committed the
offense.
 DORADO Vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 216671 FACTS:

Dorado was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, he was only 16
years old. Dorado and others were charged with the crime of frustrated murder committed
against the victim named Ronald Bonion, they were also charged with violation of R.A. 7610
or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, exploitation and Discrimination
committed against Rabiel Parino. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented
witnesses, they tend to prove that on April 15, 2004 at around 11:00 o’clock in the evening
Dorado carrying a sumpak and his group arrived where the victim and his group were
situated and started to throw stones and bottles. Afterwards, Dorado fired his sumpak and
hit Ronald between the eyes.
On defense, they said that Dorado was at home watching television and suddenly,
the barangay tanods arrived and blamed him for the shooting of Ronald. That they did not
find the weapon sumpak in his possession.
RTC found dorado guilty of the crime of frustrated murder because he had intent to
kill Ronald since their group had a feud between the victim. While on the case of violation of
R.A. 7610 they were all acquitted as the crime was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and
the prosecutuin failed to prove Ronald’s minority. The CA affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether the findings of the lower courts were correct.

HELD: NO.

This court ruled that he must benefit from the provisions of R.A. 9344.
Under the provision: minors shall be exempt from criminal liability:
a. Those below 15 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime; and

b. Those above 15 years of age but below 18 years of age who acted
without discernment.

Once the CICL is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall not immediately
execute its judgement rather it shall place the CICL under suspended sentence.
Also, the prosecution did not determine the discernment of Dorado at the time of
the commission of the crime. The S.C. said that the lower courts did not make an
effort to prove that Dorado acted with discernment. The RTC simply stated the
mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of Dorado. For discernment cannot be
presumed even if Dorado intended to do away with Ronald.
Case of People of the Guevarra vs. Almodovar
G.R.No. 75256 26January1989

FACTS OF THE CASE: The Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, petitioned the court for a
special civil action for certiorari against the Hon. Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the city court
of Legaspi. The petitioner, then 11 years old was target shooting with his best friend
Teodoro Amine, Jr. and three other children in the backyard in the morning of
29October1984. Unfortunately, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on the left collar bone, w/c then
caused his death.

ISSUE OF THE CASE: Can an 11- year old boy be charged w/ the crime of homicide thru
reckless imprudence?
- Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means: a determination to
do certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential
to such intent. Discernment means: the mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong

- While they (intent and discernment) are products of mental processes w/in a
person; intent refers to the desired of one’s act (active) while discernment refers to the
moral significance that a person ascribes to an act (passive)

- Minors 9yrs to 15yrs are presumed to be without criminal capacity; but this
presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating
the nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they) acted w/ discernment

- Discernment is embraced w/in the concept of intelligence w/c is one of the elements
of a culpable felony, thus it is important that a minor 9yrs to below 15 yrs of age to have
acted w/ discernment to show that he acted w/ intelligence thus being liable for the offense
under Art 365 of the R.PC

HELD: PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TRO EFFECTIVE
17SEPTEMBER1986 IS LIFTED. LET IT BE REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT FOR TRIAL ON
THE MERITS. NO COSTS.
 G.R. No. 123298 November 27, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO

Facts:
On November 21, 1990, Israel Montilla was sleeping in the sala of the
victim’s residence when he was awakened by the victim’s shout for help. He
then rushed to the victim’s bedroom which was just 2 ½ meters away from
the sofa on which he slept. By the doorway, he met appellant who was
holding a fan knife in his right hand and the victim’s shoulder bag in his
left. He grappled with appellant, who suddenly stabbed him on his left upper
arm. While Montilla searched for something with which he could defend
himself, appellant rushed out of the house through the kitchen door, the
lock of which the latter had destroyed. Montilla looked inside the bedroom
and saw his grandmother on the bed lying in a pool of blood, with stab
wounds all over her body.
The RTC finds the charge of Robbery with Homicide unsubstantiated
by evidence, convicted appellant of the crime of Murder.
Appellant, thereafter, filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that
the trial court erred in convicting him of Murder instead of Homicide, and in
failing to apply the mitigating circumstance of minority.

Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in not appreciating the privileged
mitigating circumstances of minority interposed by the defense.

Ruling:
This Court, however, disagrees with the trial court in its conclusion on
the mitigating circumstance of minority. In its order, the court a quo found
appellant’s birth certificate doubtful because there appeared a slight
discrepancy between the name stated thereon and the name being used by
appellant. in assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of
minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being more
beneficial to the latter. In fact, in several cases, this Court has appreciated
this circumstance on the basis of a lone declaration of the accused regarding
his age.
This Court emphasizes that while the submitted birth certificate is not
entirely satisfactory, a careful review of the records reveals other evidence of
appellant’s minority.
Furthermore, this Court agrees with appellant’s claim that he should
be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty to
the offense charged. The requisites of this circumstance are: (1) that the
offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt
was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the
case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation
of evidence for the prosecution. In this case, upon re-arraignment,
appellant, in the presence of his counsel, and in open court, voluntarily
pleaded guilty to the crime charged before the prosecution presented its
evidence.

PEOPLE v. MANUEL MACAL Y BOLASCO, GR No. 211062, 2016-01-13

Facts of the case

In February 12, 2003 in Tacloban City, Manuel Macal (Manuel) did, then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and with evident premeditation, that is, having conceived and
deliberated to kill his wife, Auria Macal (Auria), with whom he was united in lawful wedlock,
armed with an improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle) and a kitchen knife, stab Auria on
the front portion of her body inflicting a fatal wound which caused her death, which
incident happened inside the bedroom of the house they are residing.

To prove the accusation, Angeles Ytac (Angeles), the mother of Auria, narrated that Auria
and Manuel (accused-appellant) got married in March 2000, and they begot two (2)
children. Angeles claimed that, that the time of the incident, they were all living together in
a house located in V & G Subdivision, Tacloban City.

Angeles testified that at around 1.20 AM of February 12, 2003, she was walking home along
with her children, including Auria, after playing bingo at a local peryahan. Along the way,
Angeles and her group met Manuel, and the latter joined them in walking back to their
house. When they arrived at the house, the group proceeded to the living room except for
Auria and the Manuel who went straight to their bedroom, about four (4) meters away from
the living room. Shortly thereafter, Angeles heard her daughter Auria shouting, “Mother,
help me, I am going to be killed.” Upon hearing Auria’s plea for help, Angeles and the rest of
her companions raced towards the bedroom but they found the door of the room locked.
Arvin kicked open the door of the bedroom and there they all saw a bloodied Auria on one
side of the room. Next to Auria was Manuel who was then trying to stab himself with the
use of an improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle). Auria was immediately taken to a
hospital, but was pronounced dead on arrival. Angeles declared that the Manuel jumped
over the fence and managed to escape before the policemen could reach the crime scene.

Moreover, Erwin Silvano (Erwin) corroborated Angeles’ testimony that Auria was killed by
Manuel, as he claimed that he was part of the group that went to Angeles’ residence on that
fateful morning.

The prosecution formally offered in evidence the Certificate of Death wherein it is indicated
that Auria died of hemorrhagic shock secondary to stab wound.

On the other hand, in the version of the defense, Manuel, the accused-appellant, admitted
his relationship with Auria. He did not, however, deny the factual allegations of the
prosecution that he stabbed his wife, resulting in the latter’s death, but seeks exoneration
from criminal liability by interposing the defense that the stabbing was accidental and not
intentional.

In his version of the incident, on February 12, 2003, Manuel arrived home in V & G
Subdivision, Tacloban City from Manila. Before he could reach the bedroom, he was warned
by Arvin, his brother-in-law, not to go inside the bedroom where his wife was with a man
for he might be killed. Ignoring Arvin’s admonition, Manuel kicked the door but it was
opened from the inside. After the bedroom door was opened, Manuel saw Auria and a man
seated beside each other conversing. Furious by what he had seen, the accused-appellant
went out of the room, got a knife and delivered a stab blow towards the man but the latter
was shielded by Auria, which caused the stab blow to land on Auria. After Auria was
accidentally stabbed, the man ran outside and fled. Manuel testified that he wounded
himself on the chest out of frustration for not killing the man. He then left the house and
went to Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC) for medical treatment.

To support the accused-appellant’s claim that he brought himself to a hospital on February

12, 2003, Nerissa, the Administrative Officer/OIC Records Officer of EVRMC, was presented
as witness for the defense. The latter confirmed that the accussed-appellant sustained a
three-centimeter wound located at the left parasternal, level of the 5 th ICS non-penetrating
and another lacerated wound in the left anterior chest.

The RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide, and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.

Issue/s
- Whether or not Manuel can invoke Article 12, par 4 of the RPC to release him from
criminal liability
- Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable dount of the crime of parricide
III. Ratio/Legal Basis YES/NO. - No. The defense of accident presupposes lack of intention
to kill. This certainly does not hold true in the instant case based on the testimony of the
accused-appellant. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses, who were then within hearing
distance from the bedroom, testified that they distinctly heard Auria screaming that she was
going to be killed by the accussedappellant. Given these testimonies, the accused-appellant’s
defense of accident is negated as he was carrying out an unlawful act at the time of the
incident. It also bears stressing that in raising the defense of accident, the accused-appellant
had the inescapable burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, of accidental
infliction of injuries on the victim. In so doing, the accused-appellant had to rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. As aptly
pointed out by the CA, the defense failed to discharge the burden of proving the elements of
exempting circumstance of accident that would otherwise free the accused-appellant from
culpability. Aside from the accused-appellant’s self-serving statement, no other proof was
adduced that will substantiate his defense of accidental stabbing. Further, contrary to what the
accused-appellant wants the Court to believe, his actuations closely after Auria was stabbed
tell a different story. If Auria was really accidentally stabbed by him, the accused-appellant’s
natural reaction would have been to take the lead in bringing his wife to a hospital. Instead,
his priority was to come up with an improvised bladed weapon that he could use to hurt
himself. Additionally, the fact that the accused-appellant ran away from the crime scene
leaving Auria’s relatives and neighbors to tend to his dying wife is indicative of his guilt. -
Yes. The Court affirms the conviction of the accused-appellant with modifications. Parricide
is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Among the
three requisites, the relationship between the offender and the victim is the most crucial. This
relationship is what actually distinguishes the crime of parricide from homicide. In parricide
involving spouses, the best proof of the relationship between the offender and victim is their
marriage certificate. Oral evidence may also be considered in proving the relationship
between the two as long as such proof is not contested. In this case, the spousal relationship
between Auria and the accused-appellant is beyond dispute. As previously stated, the defense
already admitted that Auria was the legitimate wife of the accused-appellant during the
pretrial conference. Such admission was even reiterated by the accused-appellant in the
course of trial of the case. Nevertheless, the prosecution produced a copy of the couple’s
marriage certificate which the defense admitted to be a genuine and faithful reproduction of
the original. Hence, the key element that qualifies the killing to parricide was satisfactorily
demonstrated in this case.
BONIFACIO NIEVA Y MONTERO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 188751, 2016-11-16
Facts:
On October 28, 2005, at around six o'clock in the evening, Luna and Raymundo were doing
carpentry works for Judy at Kaunlaran, Hernandez, Catmon, Malabon City. Judy was supervising
the construction of her nipa hut when Nieva arrived and approached her.[7] Judy was then the
President of the Catmon Homeowners Association. Nieva inquired on the electrification project
of the Homeowners Association, to which Judy replied that the matter was already taken care of
by the Manila Electric Company (MERALC0).[8] However, Nieva suddenly shouted at Judy and
cursed her saying: "Mga putang ina nyo, lima kayo mga president kayo, kung gusto nyo
magkaroon ng mga problema, bibigyan ko kayo ng mga problema ngayon."[9] He then drew
a .357 caliber revolver (wrapped in a white piece of cloth) from his waist.[10] Overwhelmed with
fear, Judy clung to Luna's back and used him as a shield against Nieva.[11]Nieva, who was about
two arms' length away, pointed his gun at Judy and fired several times but the gun jammed.[12]
At this point, Raymundo, who was at the roof of the nipa hut, jumped from the hut to help her
aunt, Judy. However, before Raymundo reached Judy, he heard a gunshot and saw Judy fall to the
ground.[13] As she simultaneous fell, Judy was able to push Luna towards Nieva. Luna and
Nieva then grappled for the gun. With the help of Raymundo, Luna seized the gun from Nieva.
[14]
Issues:
Nieva had no intent to kill Judy, thus, he should only be convicted of physical injuries.
Ruling:
Nieva submits that he has no intent to kill Judy considering that the gun was pointed to the
ground when it was fired and Judy's wound was not fatal.
Nieva's contentions are untenable.In Rivera v. People,[52] we explained that intent to kill may be
proved by: (a) the means used by the malefactors; (b) the nature, location and number of wounds
sustained by the victim; (c) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately
after the killing of the victim; (d) the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and
(e) the motives of the accused.[53]We concur with the findings of the CA that intent to kill was
present.[54] It is undisputed that Nieva used a gun, a deadly weapon, in assaulting Judy. At that
time, Judy was unarmed and could not have defended herself. Nieva fired the gun several times
towards Judy. If the bullets had not jammed, Nieva could have killed Judy through multiple
gunshot wounds. As it was, the gun's bullets jammed and the gun fired only once; albeit, leaving
Judy with a wound on her upper right leg, which according to Dr. Serrano could have caused her
death if not for the timely medical intervention at the MCU Hospital. Prior to the incident, Nieva
also admitted that there had been several quarrels between him and Judy.[55] These
circumstances showing the weapon used, the nature of the wound sustained by Judy, and the
conduct of Nieva before and during the incident, manifest Nieva's intent to kill Judy.
Nieva repeatedly uses the testimony of Judy that the gun was aimed at the ground when it fired in
order to exculpate him from liability. However, as we had explained earlier, Nieva fired the gun
several times before the bullet finally went off. With the urgency and suddenness of the situation,
minor lapses in Judy's testimony cannot be used against her.In fine, the prosecution established
beyond reasonable doubt the elements of frustrated homicide, which are: first, the accused
intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; second, the
victim sustained a fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and
third, none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, is present.[56]