6.

PEOPLE v EPIFANIO & ROMAN DIOKNO - Shanon

ISSUE: Whether respondent Dioknos are entitled to mitigating circumstances of:

a. vindication of a grave offense
b. passion or obfuscation
c. voluntary surrender.
FACTS:
 Salome Diokno (Epifanio’s son) was engaged to Yu Hiong
 Salome Diokno asked Yu Hiong, to take her with him (elope).
 In the afternoon on the same day, the couple took an automobile and headed for Pagbilao,
where one of Salome’s cousins lived. The relative was not a home, so the couple went to
San Pablo, Laguna
 Epifanio, father of Salome, was informed by his son, Roman, through a telegraph that
Salome was missing.
 The two very worried men began a search, and then learned of their stay at Laguna.
 They proceeded to the house of one Antonio Layco, and immediately saw Yu Hiong
descending the steps of the house.
 They ran up to him and caught him.
 Yu Hiong sank to his knees; begging for forgiveness.
 But the Diokno’s, understandably raging over their girl’s abduction, inflicted a total of
five stab wounds on Yu Hiong with their balisong.
 Epifanio would’ve killed Yu Hiong on the spot, were it not for the timely intervention of
Roman, who said: “Enough, father!”
 Antonio Layco saw the barely conscious Yu Hiong , called the police, and the two men
were apprehended .
 The police came and asked who wounded Yu Hiong, Epifanio Diokno answered that it
was he who wounded Yu hiong, while Romano left before the policemen arrived.
 While in the hospital, Yu Hiong made a statement that he was attacked by the accused.
He died later on.
 They were found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the court of
First Instance of Laguna.

HELD:
a. Yes.
The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication can be considered, for the following
reasons:
i. Although what the law requires is that the vindication for the grave offense be
done proximately to the later, the case at hand dealt with a continuing offense. Note
that the whereabouts of their beloved Salome were unknown to them, prior to their
discovery of Layco’s house in Laguna three days later. In the course of the three days,
the men were subjected to mental and emotional tortures that lasted until the men
came face to face with Yu Hiong. Therefore, there was no interruption between the
offense against the honor of the Dioknos and the vindication. They therefore had no
sufficient time to recover their serenity, they constantly suffered from the wrong.
 ii. The determination of the gravity of an offense so as to somewhat deserve
vindication may be ascertained from the following:
- The social standing of the person or his social, economic, educational,
and cultural background. This also includes his age and his sex.
- The time when the offense against him was made
- The place when the offense was made

IMPORTANT: Court held that the Dioknos, being a traditional family, is

apprehended by the act of elopement (or pagtatanan) of the unmarried
couple (Salome and Yu Hiong) which is considered immoral and and
attack against family honor and dignity.
b. Yes. The mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was also properly appreciated by
the Supreme Court. The men were understandably furious at the sudden disappearance of a
family member; and when Yu Hiong ran upstairs when he saw the Dioknos, the unfortunate
Chinese incensed the men by impliedly refusing to deal with them and at the same time
admitting that he had committed against them a grave wrong.
c. Yes. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was also considered by the SC for
Epifanio. When approached by the policeman Curabo, Epifanio immediately admitted that it he
who had stabbed Yu Hiong. He also surrender his balisong to the policeman and offered no
resistance in being taken to the police station.