People v.
Javier  For the mitigating circumstance of illness to be appreciated, the following must
G.R. No. 130654 | July 28, 1999
Romero, J.
Accused-appellant Eduardo kills his wife Florentina with a bolo. He admits to the
crime but claims he had been suffering from insomnia for a month when he killed
his wife, claiming the mitigating circumstance of illness. The SC denied his appeal
for lack of evidence showing that his insomnia caused the diminution of the
exercise of his willpower.
FACTS:
1. Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier and the deceased Florentina Lacaste Javier
had been married for 41 years at the time of her death. They had 3 children:
Alma, who lived with them; Consolacion, who lived 15 meters away; and
Manuel, who lived about 70-80 meters away.
2. Jun. 15, 1996, 2-3am: While at home, Consolacion heard Florentina
screaming, “Arayaten dac ta papatayen nac ni Tatangyo” (Your father is going
to kill me). Consolacion rushed out of her house and saw Alma in front of their
parents’ house, who told her that their parents were fighting. The two sisters
rushed to Manuel’s house to fetch him.
 The siblings then went back to their parents’ house. Manuel entered
first and found Florentina’s lifeless body and Eduardo wounded in the
abdomen. Eduardo had confessed to him that he killed Florentina and
stabbed himself.
3. Eduardo raised the defense of insanity. He told the court that he killed his wife
because he had not slept for more than a month, and that at the time the killing
took place, his mind went totally blank and he did not know what he was doing.
 The RTC rejected this contention, because the defense failed to
present any medical records nor the testimony of a psychiatrist to
prove
4. RTC Agoo convicted Eduardo of parricide and sentenced him to death, to pay
Florentina’s heirs P50,000 in moral damages and P21,730 as actual expenses,
and costs.
5. Eduardo appeals, averring that the lower court should have considered the
mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, and illness (loss of sleep
for a prolonged period of time). (These circumstances were not alleged by the
defense before the lower court).
 He also contends that he suspected that Florentina was having an
affair, which was aggravated by his illness.
 OSG argues that Eduardo cannot claim the mitigating circumstance of
illness absent a medical finding to support such claim, and the
circumstance of passion and obfuscation absent sufficient evidence.
ISSUE: W/N accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
illness – No.
be present:
o The illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender;
and
o Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his
acts.
 However, aside from Eduardo’s own testimony that his mind went blank due to
insomnia, no medical finding was presented regarding his mental condition at
the time of the killing.
o No clear and convincing evidence was shown that he was suffering an
illness which diminished the exercise of his willpower at the time.
 On the other hand, it is apparent that Eduardo was aware of the acts he
committed. He remembered that he killed Florentina using a bolo, that he tried
to kill himself thereafter, and that he was brought to the hospital by his
children.
o This shows he was in full control of his mental faculties, negating his
claim that his insomnia diminished the exercise if his willpower.
ISSUE: W/N accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation – No.
 The following elements should concur for this mitigating circumstance to apply:
o There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such
condition of mind; and
o Said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during
which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.
 These elements were not proven to be present in this case.
o In fact, during Eduardo’s testimony before the trial court, he admitted
he was not jealous of his wife. It seems that he merely alleged his
suspicion as an afterthought.
ISSUE: W/N accused-appellant should be sentenced to death – No.
 The crime of parricide, not being a capital crime per se as it is not punishable
by mandatory death penalty but by the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death, two indivisible penalties, the application of the lesser or the greater
penalty depends on the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
 In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the SC finds that
the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper.
DISPOSITION:
Judgment modified. Penalty is lowered to reclusion perpetua.