Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Exempting Circumstances
Exempting Circumstances
doc \ 1
PEOPLE v. RABANILLO
307 SCRA 613 (1999)
Facts: Rabanillo and the deceased Morales were drinking with
their friends. One friend started a water fight game and
Rabanillo joined the fun, accidentally dousing Morales with
water. Morales reprimanded him because water got into his ear
and they argued which led into a fistfight. They were pacified
and ushered to their respective houses. The prosecutions
version of the events was given credit by the court which
claimed that after 30 minutes after, while Morales and some
friends were having a conversation in the terrace of the house of
Morales, Rabanillo went out his house with a one-meter samurai
and hacked Morales who died that same day. Rabanillo offered
his testimony to prove the mitigating circumstances of passion
and obfuscation, drunkenness, and voluntary surrender thereby
admitting having killed Morales.
Held: For passion and obfuscation to be mitigating, the same
must originate from lawful feelings. From the version of the facts
by the prosecution, clearly the assault was made in a fit of
anger. The turmoil and unreason that would naturally result from
a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or
excitement in the mind of a person injured or offended to such a
degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control. The
excitement which is inherent in all persons who quarrel and
come to blows does not constitute obfuscation.
Moreover, the act producing obfuscation must not be far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the accused might have regained
his normal equanimity. In this case, 30 minutes intervened
between the fight and the killing. Having been actuated more by
the spirit of revenge or anger than of a sudden impulse of
natural or uncontrollable fury, passion and obfuscation cannot
be appreciated.
To be mitigating, the accuseds state of intoxication should be
proved or established by sufficient evidence. It should be such
an intoxication that would diminish or impair the exercise of his
willpower or the capacity to know the injustice of his act. The
accused must then show that (1) at the time of the commission
of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic
drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree
of self-control; and (2) such intoxication is not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. The accused
merely testified that he joined his friends de Guzman and
Soriano in a drinking session, but only for a short time. The fact
that he was able to resume his routine work thereafter, belie his
claim that he was heavily drunk at the time he attacked the
victim. The regularity of Rabanillos alcohol intake could even
have increased his tolerance for alcohol to such an extent that
he could not easily get drunk.
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/326595023.doc \ 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE v. GERMINA
290 SCRA 146 (1998)
Facts: The appellant went to the house of the victim. A heated
conversation took place between victims relatives and appellant
concerning a quarrel between the accuseds brother and victim.
When the victim arrived, appellant drew his gun. Victims
relatives scampered to safety and victim tries to run but tripped.
When the appellant caught up with him, the appellant shot him
at the nape. Appellant was convicted of murder because of the
presence of treachery, the victim, having been shot at the back.
Held: The mere fact that the victim was shot at the back while
attempting to run away from his assailant would not per se
qualify the crime to murder. If murder was his bent, he wouldnt
have gone to the house of the victim not would he engage the
victims relatives to a heated argument. Thus, the crime is not
attended by treachery (aleviosa). Moreover, passion cannot coexist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his
control and reason while in treachery, the means employed are
consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control
could not deliberately employ a particular means, method or
form of attack in the execution of the crime. Thus, without
treachery, the mitigating circumstance of passion as well as
voluntary surrender may be appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE v. PINCA
31 SCRA 270 (1999)
Facts: The accused alleged that the victim doused him with
alcohol. While aboard a tricycle with a friend, the accused
spotted the victim. He got off the tricycle and got a piece of
wood, waited for the victim and once near, the accused
suddenly struck the victim on the head. He was found guilty of
murder. On issue is the attendance of modifying circumstances.
Held: For treachery to be considered a qualifying circumstance,
two conditions must concur: (1) offender employed such means,
method or manner of execution as to ensure his safety from the
defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said
means, method or manner of execution was deliberately
adopted. The essence of treachery is the deliberateness and
unexpected of the attack, which give the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. In the
case at bar, the appellant struck the drunk victim from behind.
The attack, being sudden and deliberate and the victim being
utterly unsuspecting and thus unable to put up any resistance,
was treacherous indeed.
For evident premeditation to be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance, there must be clear and convincing proof of: (1)
time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an
act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination, and
(3) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and
PEOPLE v. CRISOSTOMO
160 SCRA 47 (1988)
Facts: While Crisostomo was passing near the house of
Geronimo, he met the latter and invited him to have a drink in
the place of a friend. Geronimo declined the offer. Suddenly
Crisostomo rushed towards Romeo who was then standing near
a store facing the street with his back towards Crisostomo and
shot him at a distance of one meter.
Held: Under Article 15 of the RPC, intoxication of the offender
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/326595023.doc \ 3
Judgment: The trial court was correct in convicting accusedappellant of the crime of parricide under Art. 246, RPC, as
amended by RA No. 7659, Sec. 5. 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 any aggravating
or mitigating circumstance for the accused-appellant, the lesser
penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. JAVIER
311 SCRA 576 (1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PEOPLE V. PARAZO
G.R. No. 121176, ]ulv 8, 1999;
Motion for Reconsideration of a decision of the Supreme Court
Facts:
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/326595023.doc \ 4