The People of the Philippines vs .

Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon

G.R. No. L-47941 April 30, 1985

Facts:

Magdalena de los Santos, herein referred as the victim, was the spouse of the accused, Jaime
Tomotorgo. Prior to the incident on June 23, the victim has been persistent to her husband, the
accused, to sell the conjugal home at Sitio Dinalungan, Brgy. Cabugao, Siruma, Camarines Sur, in
which the accused refused to so. For the reason that he was already invested on the land that he was
farming, and it is far from Tinambac, Camarines Sur where his wife desired to relocate.

On June 23, 1977, at about 0700 hours Tomotorgo left home to work on his farm, and returned at
around 0900 hours, wherein he found that his wife and his three-month old baby gone. He immediately
looked for them, and with a distance of 200 meters from their home, he saw de los Santos with the
infant while bringing a bundle of clothes. De los Santos refused to go home despite the pleadings of
Tomotorgo. The accused tried to take the child from his wife, but the wife threw the baby on the grassy
portion that triggered the baby to cry. Such act of the wife provoke the accused in anger, and attacked
his wife with the piece of wood he had picked nearby. Realizing what he has done, Tomotorgo carried
his wife to their home, then went back to retrieve his baby and took him home as well. And despite all
efforts to save his wife, de los Santos died.

Bringing along the wood that he used, Tomotorgo reported the incident to the Barangay Captain, that
assisted him to surrender to Policeman Arellosa.

During the arraignment on November 24, 1977, the accused pleaded not guilty under the charges of
parricide. But during the trial on December 13, 1977, thru his counsel manifested the accused’s appeal
to reverse his previous plea to that of guilty that was allowed by the trial court.

The accused was found guilty under the crime of parricide, however there were three (3) mitigating
circumstances in his favor, namely: voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation.

With the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the accused filed a notice to appeal to the Court.

Issue :

Whether or not Tomotorgo should be penalized with reclusion perpetua.

Held :

The accused is guilty of parricide and should be punished with reclusion perpetua. This is despite of
his appeals that he should be punished only for the felony intended to commit, rather than the felony
committed, as he did not intentionally wanted to kill his wife. Wherein based on Article 4 of the Revised
Penal Code states that “Criminal Liability shall be incurred (1) By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.”

Although there were three (3) mitigating circumstances (Revised Penal Code, Article 3) that were in his
favor, it did not exempt him from the crime as his wife immediately died after the assault—thus making
his appeal contradictory within the scope of Article 263.

Article 49, par. 1 states that if the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the
latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.

The trial court also considered the circumstances which attended the commission of the offense, the
manifest repentant attitude of the accused and his remorse for his act thus recommending executive
clemency after his service of the minimum of the medium penalty of prison mayor.