Oriente vs People
Whether the requisite of unlawful aggression
GR No. 155094. January 30, 2007.
Facts of the Case:
Prosecution that their lone witness, Arnel
Tanael, was on his way to Cariño’s house when
he saw (petitioner) Oriente having a drinking
spree with several companions at the latter’s
terrace. Thereafter, when Cariño went out of his
house, Tanael saw Oriente and his companions
viciously attack Cariño with a lead pipe. Tanael
then proceeded to bring Cariño to a medical
center where the latter passed away two hours
later. The post-examination declared that the
cause of death was a traumatic head injury.
However, Oriente refuted the prosecution’s
version of events. He narrates that on the night
of Cariño’s death he was first invited by off-duty
Tanods to attend a wake. Upon leaving his
house, he overheard several gunshots coming
from a distance. It was then that Cariño allegedly
extended his arms and poked his gun at Oriente
and his companions, warning them not to come
any closer. For fear of being shot, he then hit
Cariño with a piece of wood he was able to find.
Cariño then fell to the ground gut still held on to
his gun. Yet Cariño managed to stand and run
away but Oriente and his companions agreed not
to pursue Cariño any further.
Issues:
I. Whether Oriente’s felonious acts and crime of
homicide was attended by the mitigating
circumstances of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong and sufficient provocation.
NO. The brute force employed by Oriente
contradicts the claim that he had no intention to
kill the victim. The mitigating circumstance of
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated
because the acts employed by Oriente were
reasonably sufficient to produce the death of the
victim. Moreover, the fact a heated or intense
argument preceded the incident is not by itself
the sufficient provocation contemplated by law.
II.
in self-defense was present so as to justify
Oriente’s killing of Cariño.
NO. Considering the extensive head injuries
suffered by Cariño, it is doubtful that a person in
that condition, aggravated by the state of
drunken stupor, could still run, much less hold a
gun while running. Thus, the primordial requisite
of unlawful aggression was inexistent.
III. Whether a witness with testimony full of
inconsistencies is credible.
YES. The presence of inconsistencies
strengthens, rather than weakens, the credibility
of the witness because it proves that the
testimony was unrehearsed. Furthermore, after
Oriente owned to his felonious act, the burden
of proof is now reversed; it is incumbent upon
him to rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not on the weakness of the evidence of the
prosecution.
IV. Whether increasing or modifying the penalty
imposed without any discussion or explanation
is necessary and in accordance with law.
YES. Courts have the power to amend their
decisions, to make them conformable to law and
justice, with the exception of amendments that
are substantial in nature. Where, changes in the
penalty do not involve the consideration of new
evidence and therefore not substantial in nature.