ARTICLE 13 Par.
5 -VINDICATION he should have been credited with the mitigating circumstance of
CARDO BACABAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 532 SCRA
557 (2007)
FACTS:
There was an apparent mis-understanding that ensued between the victim
(Hernani, Eduardo and Melchor) and the petitioner’s group (Jonathan and
Edzel) as witnessed by Jesus. This misunderstanding led to a physical
altercation (hitting the petitioner’s group with sticks/bamboo sticks) with
the victim’s group dominating. Jesus threatened to shoot the victims and so
the scuffle ended.Jesus went to report the incident to Edzel’s father (Jose).
The victim and his companions, headed in the course, they met the
petitioner’s group in the corner of M.H Del Pilar and Sto. Domingo streets.
Petitioner’s group armed with armalites and wood. Jesus pointed to the
victims as the one manhandling Edzel and Jonathan. The victim apologized,
explaining that they mistook them for someone else. Still, the petitioner,
fired his armalite to the air and Jose, spraying bullets left to right even
hitting Jonathan. Eduardo fell and Melchor escaped but the Hernani, who
was in kneeling position and raising his hands in surrender, was then and
there shot by Jose.Eduardo and Hernani died.
Thelower court of Iloiloconvicted the perpetrators of murder qualified by
treachery with the Court of Appeal affirming.
When elevated to the Supreme Court, one of t he contentions of the
petitioner is that “assuming the correctness of the pronouncement of guilt,
“immediate vindication of a grave offense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, assuming the correctness of the pronouncement of guilt,
should petitioner be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
Article 13. Par. 5 (That the act was committed in the immediate vindication
of a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate. Natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives
by affinity within the same degrees)
RATIO:
SC affirmed the decision of the appellate court which is murder with
aggravating circumstances (needed to pave way for the deliberation of
vindication as mitigating circumstance).
Mitigating Circumstances; Vindication of a grave offense
The offense committed on Edzel was “hitting” his ear with a stick. Edzel
admitted that he was not hit on his head but on his ear. The act is obviously
not a “grave offense”. Edzel is petitioner’s nephew, hence not a relative by
affinity within the same degree as contemplated in Article 13. Par. 5.
DISPOSITIVE:
Hence, petitioner does not qualify to the mitigating circumstance of
vindication. SC affirmed the decision of the appellate court.