Criminal law| Art.

13| Immediate Vindication of a Grave offense

PEOPLE VS ESPINA 361 SCRA 701 FACTS: In the afternoon of September 30, 1992, the members of an association locally known as the ripa-ripa went to the house of Eufornia Pagas in Bohol for their scheduled contribution to fund intended for a wedding celebration. Among present thereat were Romeo Bulicatin, Rogelio Espina and Samsung Abuloc who were having a drinking spree and playing cards. Romeo Bulcatin asked Espina to buy 3 bottles of Kalafu wine which he acceded. After they have emptied their wines, Bulcatin then asked Espina to buy another 3 bottles again which the he refused to obey. Romeo Bulcatin then proceeded to where Espina was playing card and without warning, urinated on the latter and clipped him under his arms. Espina went home to avoid in any altercation. At around 9:00 p.m. in the same evening, while they were still having a drinking spree at the store of Eurofina Pagas, accused-appellant was outside saying Borgs, get out because I have something to say. Three of them went down and at the juncture, when Romeo Bulcatin was still at the stairway, Espina shot him at the back and was chased after receiving another 2 shots.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE: In convicting the accused-appellant, the trial court appreciated the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms, pursuant to R.A. 8294. Accusedappellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: The amendatory provision cannot be applied to the accused, lest it acquires the character of an ex post facto law. Likewise, the court erred in treating alevosia merely as a generic aggravating circumstance, more so in offsetting the same by the generic mitigating circumstance of having committed the crime in immediate vindication of grave offense.

HELD: Accused is Guilty of the crime of murder, having his sentenced lowered to an Indeterminate penalty of 8 years to 17 years, four months and one day. The court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of grave offense. The accused was urinated by the victim in front of the guests. The act of the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated the accused, came within the purview of a grave offense. Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be appreciated in favour of the accused.