1.

People vs Ulep

Wapili, having a high fever and insensibly talking to himself, was acting strangely in
his home (nasisiraan na ng ulo). His brother in law was trying to calm him down but
to know avail. Wapili locked himself in his room. Later on, he went out naked and
chased his brother in law (Leydan). Leydan and neighbours tried to tie him with
rope but to no avail so he got loose in the village. Leydan went to a policewoman to
report the incident and while this was happening, Wapili turned up in front of the
policewomans house to bang her vehicle so she called for assistance. Later on,
SPO1 Ulep and 2 other police officers went to the scene where they saw Wapili
armed with a bolo and a rattan stool (sabi naman ng relatives ni Wapili wala siyang
dalang bolo). Ulep fired a warning shot but Wapili charged towards them so Ulep
shot him. Wapili fell to the ground. Ulep came closer then pumped another bullet
to his head, literally blowing his brains out. Ulep: self-defense and fulfilment of a
duty.
Issue: w/n Ulep is liable for the death of Wapili
SC: YES. Liable for homicide
-

Before the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Art. 11,

par. 5, of RPC may be successfully invoked, the accused must prove the
presence of two (2) requisites, namely, that he acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or an office, and that the injury caused
or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The second
requisite is lacking in the instant case.
During the first stage, the victim threatened the safety of the police officers
by menacingly advancing towards them, notwithstanding accused-appellant's
previous warning shot and verbal admonition to the victim to lay down his
weapon or he would be shot. As a police officer, it is to be expected that
accused-appellant would stand his ground. Up to that point, his decision to
respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was
justified under the circumstances. After all, a police officer is not required to
afford the victim the opportunity to fight back. Neither is he expected - when
hard pressed and in the heat of such an encounter at close quarters - to
pause for a long moment and reflect coolly at his peril, or to wait after each
blow to determine the effects thereof.
However, Ulep cannot be exonerated from overdoing his duty during the
second stage of the incident - when he fatally shot the victim in the head,
perhaps in his desire to take no chances, even after the latter slumped to the
ground due to multiple gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the
police officers. Sound discretion and restraint dictated that Ulep, a veteran
policeman, should have ceased firing at the victim the moment he saw the
latter fall to the ground. The victim at that point no longer posed a threat and
was already incapable of mounting an aggression against the police officers.
Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.
Likewise, the evidence at hand does not favor his claim of self-defense. The
presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. There can be no
self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an
unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. In the present
case, the records show that the victim was lying in a prone position on the
ground - bleeding from the bullet wounds he sustained, and possibly
unconscious - when accused-appellant shot him in the head. The aggression
that was initially begun by the victim already ceased when accused-appellant
attacked him. From that moment, there was no longer any danger to his life.
The Court appreciated the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of
a duty or lawful exercise of a right. Under Art. 69 of RPC, "a penalty lower by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed
is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions

required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several
cases mentioned in Arts. 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such
conditions be present.
The Court likewise credited Ulep with the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender. The police blotter of Kidapawan Municipal Police Station
shows that immediately after killing Wapili, accused-appellant reported to the
police headquarters and voluntarily surrendered himself

2.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE)
URAL (ACCUSED-APPELLANT)

VS.

DOMINGO

L-30801 MARCH 27 1974

J. AQUINO

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE

CFI OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR

FACTS:
-

Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a policeman inside the
jail where he was boxing prisoner Napola (who was imprisoned for being
drunk). When Napola fell to the ground he U kicked him and poured some
liquid on N and then ignited Ns body.
Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he sustained 2 nd degree
burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face and one half of the body
including the back. She also testified that without any medical intervention,
the burns would have caused death
Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated burn as the cause of
death.
During the trial, the prosecutors failed to present the detention prisoners who
saw the burning of Napola as witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased
Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and was ordered to pay for costs

ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
-

TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder.

Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he heard a scream for
help from Napola whose shirt was in flames when found by him, he removed
the shirt, but did not summon the doctor because he thought that the burns
were not serious.
o SC: this statement cannot prevail over the testimony of Alberio
o This statement does not prove that he was not the one who burned
Napola, at most this could only mean that he was alarmed by the
consequences of his evil act
Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying that he was not
listed as a prosecution witness and that he was convicted of murder in the
past
o Wouldnt preclude him from being a credible witness.
o Since there was no police investigation (accused a police officer), the
investigation that ensued was done by a special counsel of the fiscals
office. A possible explanation of alberio not being listed at first.
o The statements of the witnesses for the defense were not inconsistent
with that of Alberios.
Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in Alberios testimony.
The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater than what was
intended).
o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1).
o TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating circumstance that the
offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed
No intent to kill but only to maltreat the drunk napola who might
have been making a nuisance of himself

He realized the fearful consequence of his felonious act, he

allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal
dispensary
Since the mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance, TC
correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium
period of the penalty for murder.

DECISION: TC decision AFFIRMED.

3. PEOPLE v. AMIT [32 SCRA 95 (1970)]

Facts: Marcelo Amit was charged with the complex crime of rape with homicide (Art. 335, RPC, as
amended). He pleaded guilty and the court sentenced him to death, with accessories prescribed by law; to
indemnify the heirs and pay the costs. He claims that the penalty of death should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua because of the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty, voluntary surrender, and lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Held: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed, because of its nature,
must necessarily be judged in the light of the acts committed by him & the circumstances under which
they are committed. Should they show a great disproportion between the means employed to accomplish
the criminal act, one the one hand, & its consequences, on the other, the mitigating circumstance must be
considered in favor of the accused. At the time of the commission of the crime, the accused was 32 years
of age, while his victim was 25 years his senior, and when the latter resisted his attempt to rape her by
biting and scratching him, to subdue her, the accused boxed her and then held her on the neck and pressed
it down, while she was lying on her back and he was on top of her, these acts were reasonably sufficient
to produce the result that they actually produced the death of the victim. The penalty of death
prescribed in the last paragraph of Art. 335 of the RPC, as amended by RA. 2632 and 4111 being an
indivisible penalty, it has to be imposed regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstances, especially
in a case like the present where there are aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior
strength (Art. 63(1), RPC) Illness of the offender considered mitigating. Example of illness of the nerves
or moral faculty. "Although she is mentally sane, we, however, are inclined to extend our sympathy to the
appellant because of her misfortunes and weak character. According to the report she is suffering from a
mild behaviour disorder as a consequence of the illness she had in early life. We are willing to regard this
as a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13, Revised Penal Code, either in paragraph 9 or in paragraph
10."

4. PEOPLE VS. REGATO 127 SCRA 287 (1984)

Nature: For automatic review is death sentence imposed on accused-appellants
Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda by the then Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch
IV, in Criminal Case No.12, entitled People vs. Miguel Regato, et al., for robbery
with homicide. They were also ordered to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs
of Victor Flores the sum of P 12,000.00; the further sum of P 8,000.00 and each to
pay one third of the costs.

Issue: In this appeal, appellants contend that the trial court erred (1)when it denied
Salcedos motion for new trial and did not acquit him of the crime charged; (2) in
convicting Regato of robbery with homicide and not with simple robbery; (3) in not

considering in their favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so

grave a wrong as that committed; (4) in considering the aggravating circumstance
of nocturnity against them and (5) in failing to consider that the aggravating
circumstance of craft is absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

Facts: About nine oclock in the evening of November 22, 1969, three persons
called at the house of Victor Flores at Sitio Macaranas, Bo. Capirawa, Palo Leyte
asking if they could buy cigarettes. Felicisima Flores, wife of Victor, was then
maintaining a small sari-sari store inside their house. Upon hearing them, she stood
up and after lighting a small kerosene lamp, opened the door of the house and
extended the lamp out to recognize the persons outside. She saw accused Miguel
Regato who was then at the porch and Jose Salceda.
As she kept on exposing the light at them, Regato approached Felicisima and struck
her hand holding the lamp, causing it to fall. Regato then pointed a gun at Felicisima
who moved backwards, towards the kitchen after which she jumped out and ran to
the house of Filomeno Pilmaco, a neighbor. She asked for help and was told to sty in
the house while he and his companions would rush to poblacion of Palo to inform
the police if the incident. After Pilmaco and his companions had left, Felicisima
heard a gun explosion from the direction of their house.
In the meantime, Godofredo Flores, the 12 years old son of Felicisima, who was
sleeping in the sala, was awakened by the voice of the robbers. He observed that
his mother was not in the house but his father was being dragged down the
stairway by Rito Ramirez and Miguel Regato. He saw also appellant Salceda then
lighted the lamp which was then on the floor of the sala of the house and then he
brought Florencio inside the bedroom where Godofredo was then hiding. Rito
Ramirez and appellant Regato in turn, brought Victor Flores inside the sala.
Thereafter, Regato hit Victor Flores with the butt of his gun and said: Where is your
money? Where is your money? When Victor answered that they do not have any,
Rito Ramirez boxed Victor at the mouth breaking one of his teeth.
While Victor was being maltreated by Rito and Regato force him to reveal where
their money was, Salceda was busy ransacking a trunk inside the bedroom which
contain P 870.00 in a box. Salceda took and went to the kitchen. He told Ramirez
that he had the money and Ramirez hit the man as he was angry for Victor telling
them earlier that he does not have money. Ramirez shot Victor Flores following
which Regato, Salceda and Ramirez rushed out the house and fled.
After some minutes, Felicisima Flores went back and found her husband bleeding.
Things inside the bedroom and found the money inside the trunk gone. With the
help of a nephew, Victor was brought to the poblacion of Palo. On the way, they met
a police patrol which proceeded to the scene of the robbery.
The party of Victor reached the municipal building of Palo, Leyte about
midnight of November 22 and few minutes thereafter, he gave a written statement
which is now marked as Exhibit C.
The following morning, Victor was admitted at the Leyte Provincial Hospital
but due to severe hemorrhage, secondary to gunshot wound, he died the same day.
Felicisima was formally investigated by the police to whom she gave her
affidavit now marked as Exhibit F. Jose Salceda on November 26, 1969 was
brought to the police department as a suspect in the case. He was identified by
Felicisima Flores. Regato was likewise apprehended and a case against the three.
Miguel Regato, Jose Salceda and Rito Ramirez were filed for Robbery with Homicide.
The case was tried against Regato and Salceda only because Rito Ramirez remains
at large.

The defense is in denial and alibi. Regato claimed that on the night of
November 22, 1969, he was in he Gacao, Palo, Leyte attending a novena prayers for
his late father-in-law were his testimony corroborated by the defense witnesses.
Salceda, on the other hand testified that in the morning of November 22, 2969 he
was in Bo. Gacao, Palo to transport palay. In that evening he had a drinking spree
with his group until 2 oclock in the following morning.

HELD: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED except as to the

penalty, which is hereby modified to reclusion perpetua.

RATIONALE:

We find no merit in the 2 nd assigned error. Appellants with Ramirez arrived

together at the residence of Victor Flores and pretended to buy cigarettes. When
Felicisima Flores opened the door, they went inside the house and demanded Victor
Flores to bring out the money. When he refused, Ramirez and Regato maltreated
him while Salceda went inside the bedroom and ransacked he trunk where the
money was kept. Ramirez then inquired whether he found the money and he
answered in the affirmative. It is the time that the shooting of Victor Flores tool
place after the money had been taken and it was only when Flores called them
robbers that Ramirez shot him. As partly stated by the lower court, It is clear that
the killing was done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, that the accused
are guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Likewise, we find no merit in the contention that there was lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Intention is a mental process and is an
internal state of mind, the intention must be judged by his action, conduct and
external acts of the accused. What men do is the best index of their intention. IN the
case at bar, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated
considering that the acts employed by the accused were reasonable sufficient to
produce the result they actually made death of the victim.
With the respect to the fourth and fifth assigned errors, nighttime and craft,
the evidence is clear that the crime was committed past 9:00 in the evening which
the culprits had especially sought he hiding mantle of the night I order to facilitate
its commission. Craft involves intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the
accused. Herein appellants, in order to enter the house of Flores, shouted from the
outside that they wanted to buy cigarettes, which induced the inmates to open the
door for the, As held in People vs. Napili, 85 Phil 521, gaining entrance by
pretending to buy cigarettes or drink water constitutes craft.
By and large, the conspiracy among appellants and Ramirez in the
commission of the crime is evident upon the facts as prove. Their acts, collectively
and individually executed, have demonstrated the existence of a common design
towards the accomplishment of unlawful purpose and objective. The shooting and
death of Victor Flores bear a direct relation and intimate connection between the
robbery and the killing which occurred during and on the occasion of the robbery.
Whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, there is no doubt that he
complex crime of robbery with homicide has been committed.
On the other hand, appellants alibi must fall. In the first place, Regatos
submittal that he should have been convicted of simple robbery only, instead of
robbery with homicide is an admission of his presence at the scene of the crime
contrary to his testimony that he was in his house that evening of November 22,
1969 attending to novena prayers for his late father-in-law. Secondly, to establish an
alibi, it is not enough to prove that appellants were at some other place when the
crime was committed but must, likewise demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for them to have been at the place of commission at such time. The
distance between the place of the commission of the offense to the place where
appellants were supposed to be at the time is only 1 kilometers, and these places
are connected with passable roads that could have facilitated the easy negotiation
by the appellants between their respective homes and the scene of the crime.
Appellants evidence on this point is not sufficient to overcome the positive

identification made by the prosecution witnesses Felicisima Flores and Godofredo

Flores.
5. PEOPLE VS. PAGAL 79 SCRA 570 (1977)

Nature: This is an appeal on the Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-5 (70) of the Circuit
Criminal Court of Manila, wherein the accused, Pedro Pagal y Marcelino and Jose
Torcelino y Torazo, were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide.

Facts: That on or about December 26, 1969, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each
other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, and
by means of violence, take away from the person of one Gau Guan, cash amounting
to P1,281.00, Philippine currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said Gau
Guan in the said sum of P1,281.00.
That on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to
take, steal and carry away the said amount of P1,281.00, the herein accused, in
pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior strength,
treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the said Gau Guan, by
then and there stabbing him with an icepick and clubbing him with an iron pipe on
different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were
the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
When the case was called for arraignment, counsel de oficio for the accused
informed said court of their intention to enter a plea of guilty provided that they be
allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation
or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceding the act, and that
of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.

Held: Since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the appellants
arose from the same incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill treatment
of the appellants by the deceased, these two mitigating circumstances cannot be
considered as two distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as
one.
Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a
crime which as in the case at bar is planned and calmly meditated before its
execution.
Finally, the appellants claim that the trial court erred in considering the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, evident premeditation, and disregard of the respect due
the offended party on account of his rank and age. Although the trial court correctly
considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity because the same was
purposely and deliberately sought by the appellants to facilitate the commission of
the crime, nevertheless, We disagree with its conclusion that evident premeditation
and disregard of the respect due the offended party were present in the commission
of the crime. Evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. However, in
the crime of robbery with homicide, if there is evident premeditation to kill besides
stealing, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance. In other words, evident
premeditation will only be aggravating in a complex crime of robbery with homicide
if it is proved that the plan is not only to rob, but also to kill. In the case at bar, a
perusal of the written statements of the appellants before the police investigators
show that then original plan was only to rob, and that, they killed the deceased only

when the latter refused to open the "kaha de yero", and fought with them. The trial
court, therefore, erred in taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation.

6. Romera vs. People G.R. No. 151978. July 14, 2004

Facts: Petitioner and his family were having dinner in their house at around seven oclock in the evening.
Thereafter, they went to bed. While lying in bed, they heard one Roy Mangaya-ay call petitioner and his
wife, asking if they had beer and a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because he knew that Roy was
already drunk. Roy asked for petitioner but when the latters wife told him that petitioner was already
asleep, he told her to wake her husband up. Petitioner went down the house and asked who was at the
door. Just as he opened the door for Roy, Roy thrust his bolo at him. He successfully parried the bolo
and asked Roy what it was all about. Roy answered he would kill petitioner. Petitioner tried to prevent
Roy from entering, so he pushed the door shut. As Roy was hacking at the wall, petitioners wife held
the door to allow petitioner to exit in another door to face Roy. He hurled a stone at Roy, who dodged
it. Roy rushed to him and hacked him, but he parried the blow. Petitioner grappled for the bolo and
stabbed Roy in the stomach. Wounded, Roy begged petitioner for forgiveness. According to petitioner,
he ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill him. The trial court discounted petitioners story of selfdefense. It found that when petitioner got hold of the bolo, there was no more danger to his life. Petitioner
was convicted of frustrated homicide, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the trial courts decision. Undeterred,
petitioner filed the instant petition for review on the sole ground that both the RTC and the Court of
Appeals erroneously failed to apply Article 64 (5) 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner contends that the
victim provoked him to a fit of anger when the latter woke him up and thrust a bolo at him without
warning as petitioner opened the door. Moreover, by hacking and destroying the bamboo wall of his
house, and endangering the lives of his children, the victim also obfuscated his thinking and reasoning
processes, says the petitioner.

ISSUE: Are the mitigating circumstances of provocation and passion or obfuscation present in this case?

Held: The Supreme Court held that while both the RTC and the Court of Appeals did not categorically
state who started the attack, it can be reasonably gleaned from their decisions that it was the victim who
initiated the aggressive encounter. Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him, and hacking the
bamboo walls of his house are, in our view, sufficient provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and
obfuscate his thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and children are in danger. Petitioner stabbed
the victim as a result of those provocations, and while petitioner was still in a fit of rage. There was
sufficient provocation and the circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended the commission of the
offense.
It must, however, be stressed that provocation and passion or obfuscation are not two separate mitigating
circumstances. Well-settled is the rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they
should be treated together as one mitigating circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it is
clear that both circumstances arose from the same set of facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be
treated as two separate mitigating circumstances. Nonetheless, the Court held that since the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender is also present, Article 64 (5) of the Revised Penal Code should be
applied.

Decision: Petitioner ARTURO ROMERA is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six
(6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
1

maximum. He is also ORDERED to pay the private offended party P19,361.15 as actual damages, and
P10,000.00 as attorneys fees. Costs de oficio.

9. People v Capalac GR No. L38297

Date of Promulgation: Oct 23, 1982
Ponente: Fernando, CJ.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of CFI of Iligan
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Mario Capalac
Facts:
Moises Capalac, the brother of accused Mario Capalac (a police officer), was stabbed by Jimmy
Magaso. Following this incident, in the cockpit of Iligan, Jimmy was trying to escape when he was
confronted by the Moises brothers (Mario and Jesus 2) and 2 other companions3. The attempt of Jimmy to
board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having alighted after two shots were fired in succession. Knowing that
he was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised his hands as a sign of surrender, but they
were not appeased. He was pistol-whipped by Mario, and after having fallen in the ground, was stabbed
on the chest 3-4 times by Jesus. He died on the way to the hospital.
Mario was convicted of murder, as qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. The lower Court
also found that he took advantage of his position as a police officer. He was sentenced to death.
Mario appealed, thus this review.
Issues/Held:
1. WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position NO
2. WON there was
a. Conspiracy - YES
b. Treachery YES
c. Evident premeditation NO
d. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication YES
Ratio:
1. The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force did not by itself justify the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office/position. He acted like a brother
(of Moises), instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his kin. He
pistol-whipped the deceased because he had a pistol with him. It came in handy and he acted
accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility.
2. a. There was conspiracy since the two brothers, as well as their 2 companions, apparently had one
purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises. They all acted in concert.
b. There was treachery since the crime was committed to insure that Jimmy would die. His situation
2Jesus has already died and so he was not included as an accused in the information filed.
3 The two companions were not named and were not included in the information.

was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile and unavailing. There was also
no risk to the aggressors since two other companions assisted them.
c.There is no evident premeditation. The brothers were prompted by their desire to avenge Moises.
They went after Jimmy, assaulted him, and relied on the weapons that they carried. There was no
evidence that they deliberately employed means to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
d. There is mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication since the purpose of the crime was to
vindicate the stabbing of Moises by Jimmy.
Decision:
Decision modified. In lieu of mitigating circumstance of immeadiate vindication, penalty of death is
lowered to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor min to 17 years, 4 mos, and 1 day of reclusion temporal
max. Decision affirmed in all other aspects.

10. PEOPLE VS. MUIT 117 SCRA 696 (1982)

NATURE: Appeal from the Decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur,
Branch I (Naga City), in Criminal Case No. R-7 (1847), convicting the accused Delfin
Muit, a retired PC 2nd Lieutenant, of Murder, and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetual for the gunning down of the victim, Rodolfo Torrero.
FACTS: On February 26, 1976 at about 2:45 o'clock in the afternoon, while the
deceased Rodolfo Torrero, his family and friends, were passing by the house of
accused Delfin Muit at barrio Tamban, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, on their Nay home
from a picnic, the accused invited them to his house to take a rest. At that time Muit
was alone as his wife and children were not around. Once the group was inside his
house, accused Muit who is a retired PC lieutenant remarked that his invitation
showed that he had no ill-feeling against the Torreros and that he knew the latter
had no ill-feeling also against him. As they engaged in some amenities, a group of
barangay members and PC authorities in !barge of the sanitation and cleanliness
program on that particular lay, which was Community Day, paid them a visit, and
after a short talk, said group left. The deceased Torrero conducted the group on
their way out and upon his return; accused Muit requested him to take a seat.
The accused then confronted Rodolfo Torrero why the latter always visits his wife
even during nighttime and why he often invites her out. Torrero replied that being
the barangay zone auditor, he had to confer with the accused's wife on barangay
matters as the latter was the barangay zone president. The accused then asked why
Torrero even gave food and money to his (accused's) children if he had no bad
intention at all on his wife. Torrero's wife answered that they did it out of pity
because there were times when they would see the accused's children in need of
food and money. The accused, however, angrily stood up and countered, "Why
should you give when your husband had also a family to support? To avoid any
trouble, the deceased Torrero likewise stood up and said, 'If that is the way we
talked about this will end to nothing, so it is better that I should leave', and he
proceeded to move out of the house.
When Torrero was already outside the house of the accused and while walking along
the pathway, the accused followed him and on reaching the door the accused
shouted, "Wait because we have not yet finished". At that instant, the accused
raised his left hand towards Torrero and with his right hand; he pulled out his .45
caliber pistol and aimed it at the deceased. Angrily, he fired his gun at Torrero who
was just 3 meters away, hitting the latter at the lower left side below the nape. On
being hit by the bullet, Torrero spun from his left to the right, with his two hands
inclined to the right, his face writhing in pain, his left elbow raised parallel to his
armpit and his right hand placed on his breast.

Upon hearing the gunshot, witness Gubatan immediately grabbed and held the
accused from behind with an embrace, and said, "Manoy Delfin, why are you like
that? But as soon as Gubatan embraced the accused from behind, a second shot
was fired, this time hitting the elevated left hand of Torrero, with the bullet
penetrating through the breast. Consequently, Torrero fell on his knees, bent
forward with face downward and body in a prone position his left elbow supporting
him on his left lap while his right hand extended to the ground. Witness Gubatan on
the other hand tightened his grip around the accused as he tried to wrestle with
him.
The wife of Torrero, who was shocked by the first shot thereupon rushed towards her
fallen husband. But the accused on seeing Mrs. Torrero rushed towards the
deceased, aimed his gun at her. Fortunately, witness Gubatan quickly grabbed the
right forearm of the accused that held the gun and jerked it upward so that the third
shot was fired towards the sky, thus missing its target Id). Witness Gubatan then
said, "Manoy Delfin that is enough". Gubatan thereafter moved the accused away
and brought him near a coconut tree. Mrs. Torrero, on the other hand, hugged her
husband and cried for help, even as blood was oozing out from the deceased's body
and mouth. Shortly thereafter, Torrero died.
Near the coconut tree, the accused tried to free himself from the hold of Gubatan.
He even pointed his gun at Gubatan and said, "Set me free Benny or I will shoot
you. When Gubatan could no longer hold the accused as the latter kept on
struggling, he let him go and said, "Alright Kuya Delfin, shoot me, after all I have no
fault". Slowly, the accused put down his arm, his eyes at static condition. He
(appellant) then started to move away, and as he did, he made a short last look at
his victim, after which, he continued on his way. After the incident, the accused
proceeded to the PC detachment to surrender himself and his gun.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused can involve passion and obfuscation as
mitigating circumstance?

HELD: Modifying the judgment appealed from, the accused Delfin Muit, is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, with the judgment being affirmed in an other respects.
RATIONALE:
During the trial the accused involved passion and obfuscation as mitigating
circumstance. There can be no question that the accused was driven strongly buy
jealousy because of rumors regarding the amorous relationship between his wife
and the victim. The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous relation
with a woman is a powerful stimulant from rivalry and amorous relation with a
woman is a powerful stimulant to jealously and is sufficient to produce loss of
reason and self-control. In other words, it is a powerful instigation of jealously and
prone to produce anger and obfuscation.