Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PALILEO
1JD-C
103.
Frustrated Homicide and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years of Prision
Correccional, as minimum to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as maximum.
After finality of this Decision, the records shall be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
which is directed to render judgment based on the evidence against Samson dela Torre y Esquela.
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found for criminals do not write down their lawless plans and
plots. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of
action and community of interest
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts
charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and
circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished. Previous agreement to commit a
crime is not essential to establish a conspiracy, it being sufficient that the condition attending to its
commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal
purpose and objective
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt acts as a direct or indirect
contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of
active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance
to his con-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, it denotes an intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose
o all of them armed with deadly weapons at the locus criminis, indubitably shows their criminal
design to kill the victims
conspirator is equally liable for the crime as it is unnecessary to determine who inflicted the fatal
wound because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all
Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. That
circumstance qualifies the crime into murder.
o all of them armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes, blocked (hinarang) the path of the victims
effectively cutting off their escape
The commission of the crime was also attended by abuse of superior strength on account of the
fact that accused-appellant and his companions were not only numerically superior to the victims but
also because all of them, armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes, purposely used force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the persons attacked. However, this aggravating
circumstance is already absorbed in treachery. In the light of the finding of conspiracy, evident
premeditation need not be further appreciated, absent concrete proof as to how and when the plan to
kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out.
What determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated is whether or not the subjective
phase in the commission of an offense has been passed (NOT gravity of the wound)
Subjective phase
o portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of
the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime.
Objective phase
o Forward the subjective phase
o period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he has control that period between the
point where he begins and the point where he voluntarily desists.
If between these two points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own
voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt.
If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated
frustrated when: (subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively the crime is complete)
o the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
o the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrators will
attempted felony: (offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense)
o the offender commits overt acts to commence the perpetration of the crime
o he is not able to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; and
o his failure to perform all the acts of execution was due to some cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance
intent to kill determines whether the infliction of injuries should be punished as attempted or
frustrated murder, homicide, parricide or consummated physical injuries
o intent to kill of the malefactors herein who were armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes can
hardly be doubted given the prevailing facts of the case
o can not be denied that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that
after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell,
Marlons attackers apparently thought he was already dead and fled
Facts: Julian Eria charged of raping 3 yrs & 11 mo. old child. Doubt on whether actual
penetration occurred. Physical exam showed slight inflammation of exterior parts of organ
indicating effort to enter vagina. Mom found childs organ covered with sticky substance
Issue: WON crime is consummated?
Held: No. Frustrated only
1.
Possible for mans organ to enter labia of a 3 years and 8 months old child (Kennedy
v. State)
2.
No conclusive evidence of penetration so give accused benefit of the doubt.
Frustrated.
Facts: Domingo Hernandez, 70 yrs old charged of raping his 9 yr old step granddaughter,
Conrada Jocson with threat to kill if she/doesnt give in to his wish. Aggravating: (1) related,
(2) grave abuse of confidence since they lived in same house.
Issue: WON act is consummated rape
Held: Yes, plus there is an aggravating circumstance.
1.
People v. Rivers: rupture of hymen not necessary as long as there is proof that
theres some degree of entrance of male organ within labia of
2.
Physical exam findings: hymen intact, labia and vaginal opening inflamed,
abundance of semen, she felt intense pain
Facts: Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan.
Campuhan was caught by childs mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in their
house. Campuhan, helper of Corazons brother was allegedly kneeling in front of the
child with both their pants downa dn child was crying ayoko, ayoko while Primo
forced his penis into childs vagina
Issue: WON crime is rape?
Held: No. Modified to attempted rape 1. Consummated rape: perfect penetration not
essential. Slight penetration is equivalent to rape. Mere touching of external
genitalia considered when its an essential part of penetration not just touching in
ordinary sense (People v. Orita). Labia majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated (People v. Escober) 2. Attempted no penetration or didnt reach
labia/mere grazing of surface 3. Failed to prove that penetration occurred. Mothers
testimony questionable with regards to her position relative to Primo and child. They
failed to establish how she could have seen actual contact in her position 4. Mans
instinct is to run when caught. Primo could not have stayed or to satisfy his lust
even if .. seeing Corazon 5. Child denied penetration occurred People v. Villamor
consummation even when penetration doubted: pains felt, discoloration of inner
lips of vagina or red labia minora or hymenal tags not visible. Now seen in case,
Medico legal officer, though penetration not needed to prove contact, no medical
basis to hold that there was sexual contact. Hymen intact.
The filched items seized fromthe duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1)
case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with
an aggregate value of P12,090.00.
In a Decision
promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
Branch 90,convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated
theft. They were sentenced to anindeterminate prison term of two (2) years of
prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum.
Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be
convicted of frustrated theftsince he was not able to freely dispose of the articles
stolen.
Decision dated 19 June 2003,the Court of Appeals rejected this contention and
affirmed petitioners conviction
,thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.ISSUE: Whether or
not the crime committed has a frustrated stage.HELD: NO.
The petition was DENIED
.
Article 6
of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all
the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
Article 308
states that, in the crime of theft, the following elements should be present: (1) that
there betaking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intentto gain; (4) that the taking be done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplishedwithout the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property
by one with intent togain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable
to freely dispose the property stolen since hehas already committed all the acts of
execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued fromsuch acts.
Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted
or consummated.
merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended
at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of
consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he
should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the
articles stolen. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, thus the Petition for
Review was filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage.
HELD:
No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft,
the following elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2)
that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)
that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be
accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things. The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property
by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely
dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the
deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have
a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.
Facts: Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla April 12, 1986, at about noon time
Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares),
staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard They were armed with homemade
guns and a hand grenade On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita
Habiero, an employee there who was on her way out for her meal break, and
informed her that it was a hold-up. They went inside the office and the petitioner
pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, Mary and
Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money. Severino asked
Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the
defense) and handed it to the petitioner. Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and
wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and Rodita were kept
inside the office. According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the
wallet and watches. At about 2:00 of the same day, the appellant told Severino to
produce P100,000 so he and the other hostages can be released. Severino told
him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it was a Saturday
The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. Major
Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with
the accused and appealed to them to surrender. The accused refused to surrender
and release the hostages. Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the
negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster, and some raincoats.
Caram offered P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and
to release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One of the
accused gave a key to Mayor Caram and with the key, Mayor Caram unlocked the
door and handed to Rodita P50,000, which Rodita gave to one of the accused.
Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office. The police and
military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still wouldnt
budge after more ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as well as to the
accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Marys right leg had to be amputated
due to her injuries. The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and watches
were all left on the counter and were never touched by them. He also claimed that
they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender.
Issues: WON the crime of robbery was consummated WON there was a mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
Held: Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful taking is
complete. o Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of
the crime of robbery. The respondent claimed that none of the items (money,
watches and wallet) were recovered from them. However, based on the evidence,
the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within the dominion and
control of the appellant and his co-accused and thus the taking was completed. o It
is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber or that he
should have actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence of the
lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it. No. The
surrender of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in their
favour to mitigate their liability. o To be mitigating, a surrender must have the
following requisites: that the offender had not been actually arrested, that the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent, and that the
surrender was voluntary. The surrender by the appellant and his co-accused
hardly meets these requirements. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of. Note:
The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious
illegal detention) was also discussed. The detention in the case at bar was not only
incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the same so the
nature of the offense was affirmed.
error must be dismissed. Offended party spent P300 for the hospital fees. 4. The
fact that he was able to escape which appellant must have seen, must have
produced in the mind of the defendant-appellant that he was not able to hit his
victim at a vital part of the body. The defendant appellant knew that he had not
actually performed all acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the subjective phase of the acts of execution
had been completed.
At about 1AM of May 22, the accused-appellants also kidnapped by means of force
Joey Lugatiman. The latter was also brought to Ravelo's house where he was
tortured. At 5AM, Lugatiman was transferred to the house of accusedappellant
Padilla. There he was tied to the wall with a nylon line and was told he would be
killed at 9AM. Shortly after, accused-appellants had to attend to Gaurano;
Lugatiman was thus left alone. He was able to escape.
He reported what happened to him and to Gaurano to the police authorities. RTC
convicted the accused-appellants of murder of Gaurano and frustrated murder of
Lugatiman.
In this appeal, counsel for the accused aver that the lower court erred in finding that
accused-appellants are guilty of frustrated murder. Counsel further contends that
there can be no frustrated murder absent any proof of intent to kill, which is an
essential element of the offense of frustrated murder. The trial court merely relied
on the statement of the accused-appellants stating they would kill Lugatiman to
establish intent to kill.
Issue: Whether the statement by the accused stating that Lugatiman would be killed
is sufficient proof of intent to convict a person of frustrated murder
Held: No
Ratio: In a crime of murder or an attempt of frustration thereof, the offender must
have the intent or the actual design to kill which must be manifested by external
acts. A verbal expression is not sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate the
act. Intent must be shown not only by a statement of the aggressor, but also by the
execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to deliver a fatal blow while
the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself.
Tying the victim on 2 by piece of wood and leaving him inside the house of the
accused are not acts that would result in death. Notes: Under the circumstances,
accused-appellants could not even be convicted of an attempt to commit murder.
There was no commencement of the criminal act by overt acts which have a direct
connection with the crime of murder intended to be committed. Accused-appellants,
therefore, are not guilty of frustrated murder but only of the crime of slight physical
injuries.
Oct. 1, 1932 -- Isabela and Arcadio Holgado ordered several laborers to have the
said land plowed.
Marcelo Kalalo found out about this and went to the land with his brothers Felipeand
Juan Kalalo, Gregorio Ramos, etc., armed with bolos. Upon their arrival, they ordered
those who were plowing to stop what they were doing, and the laborersfollowed the
order.
Marcelino Panaligan arrives, and tells the laborers to continue with their work.
Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio Holgado, while Felipe and Juan Kalalo
andGregorio Ramos all approached Marcelino Panaligan.
Fausta Abrenica, mother of the Kalalos, then remarked, "What is detaining you?"and
they all simultaneously struck with their bolos, with Marcelo Kalalo slashing Arcadio
Holgado, and Felipe and Juan Kalalo along with Gregorio Ramos slashedMarcelino
Panaligan. Arcadio and Marcelino died instantly.
Marcelo Kalalo then took Marcelino Panaligan's revolver from a holster on thelatter's
belt, and fired four shots at Hilarion Holgado who was fleeing from the scenein order
to save his own life.
Felipe and Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos were not arrested until after severaldays
after the incident took place, because they had been hiding in order to avoidarrest.
Issue:
W/N the appellants are guilty of murder or of simple homicide in
thekilling of both Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio Holgado; W/N the appellant
Marcelo Kalalo is guilty of attempted homicide in the attempt to shoot Hilarion
Holgado.
Held:
Regarding the first issue -- The Attorney-General maintains that they are guilty
of murder in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superiorstrength, while the trial court held that they are guilty of simple homicide
but withthe aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Under the RPC, the circumstance of "abuse of superior strength," if proven to
have been present, raises homicide to the category of murder. The Supreme Court
doesnot agree that there was the circumstance of "abuse of superior strength" in
the saidcase, because the deceased were also armed--Arcadio had a bolo, while
Marcelinohad a revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their
strength wasalmost balanced because there is no doubt that a revolver is as
effective as, if notmore so, than three bolos. Appellants are pronounced guilty of
homicide.
Regarding the second issue -- Marcelo Kalalo, not having contented himself
withfiring only once, fired four successive shots at Hilarion Holgado. This shows that
he was bent on killing the latter.
The acts of Marcelo Kalalo constitute attemptedhomicide with no modifying
circumstance
119.
120.
the "home guards" of San Dionisio, placed under his custody the
accused Alconga with the contention of surrendering him.
On their way to San Dionisio, the two accused were stopped by Juan
Collado, a guerrilla soldier. Adolfo Bracamonte turned over Alconga
to Collado who in turn took him to the headquarters. In the
afternoon of the same day, Collado delivered Alconga to Gregorio
Barredo, a municipal policeman of San Dionisio, together with the
weapons used in the fight: a revolver, a bolo, and a dagger.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused, Alconga, can invoke self-defense.
Ruling:
Alconga was found guilty of the crime of HOMICIDE.
Reason:
There were two stages in the fight:
First - commenced when the deceased assaulted appellant without
sufficient provocation on the part of the latter There was
unlawful aggression because he was being attacked. There was
employed reasonable necessity of means used to prevent it because,
as a security guard, he has in hand a revolver. There was no
sufficient provocation on his part.
Second stage when the deceased ran and was pursued by the accused.
When the deceased ran, it meant that the unlawful aggression
subsisted.
123.US vs Mack
Facts: The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet back from the street in the
town of Tacloban, Leyte, in an open space some 3 or 4 feet in width between the
tienda of a woman named Olimpia and another building. - The deceased, with
another policeman, approached the place and directed Olimpia to close her tienda;
ordered the accused and another soldier to go to their quarters - The accused did
not obey such order. - Some words may have passed between them, which angered
the deceased. - The deceased dragged himself free from his companion and
attacked the accused, at the same time drawing his bolo and brandishing it in a
threatening manner.
- Accused got up, drew his revolver, and the deceased having then approached
within a distance of from 3 to 6 feet, the accused fired three shots, one hit the left
breast the left breast of the deceased, another in the back of his head. - Trial court
held that the defendant adopted a mode of defense which was not reasonably
necessary - accused was taller than the deceased - deceased was perhaps under
the influence of liquor - shot a vital part
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable necessity for the use of the means
employed by accused to defend himself
Held: Yes; Mere physical superiority is no protection to an unarmed man, as against
assailant armed with a large bolo If it be true that the deceased was under the
influence of liquor when he that attack, his intoxication probably rendered him the
more dangerous, unless he was so drunk as to be physically helpless, which is not
suggested in the evidence. It was dark, the reasonable and natural thing for the
accused to do was to fire at the body. The shots were fired in rapid succession in
order to repel the attack; it could not be said that these were unnecessary. The
judgment of the trial court is reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime.
124.
blade instead in his wallet. At this point, she was aware that he was going to kill her
so she smashed his arm, causing the wallet and blade to fall. She also subsequently
smashed him with a metal pipe before running to the childrens room, where she
felt overwhelming selfpity and felt nauseous.
Marivic admitted killing her husband, however, by shooting him later on. She had
distorted the drawer where the gun was and shot him. The RTC charged Genosa
with parricide, giving her the death penalty.
ISSUES: 1) WON Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus (invoking
BWS) 2) WON there was treachery in the killing of Ben Genosa
HELD: 1) No, but with 2 mitigating circumstances 2) None
RATIO: 1) Crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at
the time of the offense she must have actually feared imminent harm from her
batterer and honestly believed that killing him would save her life. Here, there was a
sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack
upon him. The reality or even imminent danger he posed ended altogether the
moment he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed, notwithstanding the
Courts recognition of this special case that requiring the battered person to await
an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life would amount to
sentencing her to murder by installment and that threatening behavior or
communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. Aggression, if not
continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there
can be no self-defense complete or incompleteon the part of the victim.
Mitigating circumstance 1: Par. 9 and 10 of Art. 13 of the RPC
FACTS:
The wife of Wenceslao, Natividad was left in the house with their 3 children.
Wenceslao left to grind corn several kilometers away. Paulino Disuadido, their
neighbor, came and began to make love to Natividad. She cant dissuade Paulino
and so he drew and opened a knife and threatening her with death. In preparing to
lie with her, Paulino leave the knife to the floor and Natividad and stabbed him in
the abdomen. Paulino ran away by jumping through the window.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Yes, The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an aggression sufficient to put her in
a state of self defense inasmuch as a womans honor cannot be esteemed as a right
as precious, if not more, than her very existence; and it is evident that a woman
who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should be afforded exemption
from criminal liability. Witness devoid probability. ACQUITTED both accused.
Facts:
In a narrow part of a trail that was dark, after going to a wake, a man suddenly
threw his arms around her from behind, caught hold of her breasts and kissed her,
and seized her in her private parts; she tried to free herself, but he held her and
tried to throw her down; that when she felt weak and could do nothing more against
the strength of the man, she got a knife from her pocket, opened it, and stabbed
him in defense of her honor. Man did not say anything, she asked but he did not
answer. She cried for help but no one answered. She scarcely recognized the face
because of darkness. She desisted as soon as he released her. (Illiterate barrio girl,
unable to write her name, 18 years old)
Yes, Whether she did in fact cried for help, as claimed by her, or failed to do so
because of the suddenness with which the deceased grabbed her and the fright that
which it naturally caused, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case,
she is exempt from criminal liability in the defense of her honor. ACQUITTED. There
is also a mistake of fact in the case.
Facts:
Avelina Jaurigue cannot endure anymore what the deceased Amado Capina was
doing to her. (Courting her and stalking) One morning, inside a chapel, the deceased
Amado noticed Avelina and went to the bench where Avelina was sitting, he placed
his hand on the upper right thigh of the defendant and Avelina pulled with her right
hand the fan knife she always brought with her. Amado seized her right hand but
she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado in the left side
of his neck, 4 and a half inches deep, which was necessarily mortal. He died a few
minutes later.
Issue:
Facts: Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio
Apolinar alias Atong was at that time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by
Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan. Armed with a
shotgun, Atong was looking over said land when he observed that there was a man
carrying a bundle on his shoulder. Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the
defendant called his attention but he ignored him. The defendant fired in the air
and then at the person. The man, identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get
back to his house and consequently narrated to Angel Natividad, the barrio chief,
that he had been wounded in the back by a shotgun. He then showed the two
wounds - one in each side of the spinal column - which wounds were circular in
form and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch, according to the medical report of
Dr. Mananquil. Petras died of the wounds he sustained. The defendant
surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident and gave a sworn
statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on December 23,
1936.
Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property
Held: No; the right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense
of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with
an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.
the appellant, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise
produced by the victims and laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to
stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. Appellants act in
killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements for justification
are present. The crime committed is HOMICIDE on two counts mitigated by the
privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self defense as well as by two
generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation. He was
sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment and considering that appellant has been
under detention for 14 years since his voluntary surrender, his immediate release
was ordered.