urbana v ppl 2009, people v benito 1975 bacabac v people 2007, us vs

hicks 1909

G.R. No. 189981 March 9, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ALLAN GABRINO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:

Allan Gabrino, accused appellant was convicted of murder for killing Joseph Balano with a
Pisaw. The defense raised the existence mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense,
Stating that on the day the incident happened, The accused he went outside of the house to
urinate when Tap-ing threw a stone at him, which hit him on the forehead and caused him to
fall down. And when he saw Balano rushing towards him with an ice pick, he immediately
stabbed him and then ran away.

ISSUE/S:

Whether there is an existence of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

RULING:

NO. Incomplete self-defense cannot be made... as a justifying circumstance, because the...

element of unlawful aggression is absent. In order that incomplete self-defense could prosper
as a privileged mitigating circumstance, unlawful aggression must exist. In People v.
Manulit,[27] People v. Mortera,[28] and Mendoza v. People,[29] We reiterated the well-settled
rule that unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite in appreciating an incomplete self-
defense. It is any one of the two other elements of self-defense that could be wanting in an
incomplete self-defense, i.e., reasonable... necessity of the means to employed to prevent or
repel it; or lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself; but it can
never be unlawful aggression.

In this case, accused-appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of unlawful aggression that
would warrant an incomplete self-defense. As properly pointed out by the RTC, the testimony
of accused-appellant on cross-examination establishes this failure.

G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP, accused-appellant.
FACTS:

Accused was convicted of Murder for killing Wapili. Wapili who was having a high fever at that
time started getting violent and kept on running without any particular direction. SPO1 Ulep
fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put down his weapons or they would shoot
him. But Wapili retorted "pusila!" ("fire!") and continued advancing towards the police officers.
When Wapili was only about two (2) to three (3) meters away from them, SPO1 Ulep shot the
victim with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in various parts of his body. As the victim slumped to the
ground, SPO1 Ulep came closer and pumped another bullet into his head and literally blew his
brains out. He interposed self-defense and justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty.

ISSUE/S:

Whether the accused acted in self-defense and in the fulfillment of a duty under justifying
circumstances.

RULING:

NO. The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. There can be no self-
defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression
against the person defending himself.13 In the present case, the records show that the victim
was lying in a prone position on the ground - bleeding from the bullet wounds he sustained,
and possibly unconscious - when accused-appellant shot him in the head. However, We find in
favor of accused-appellant the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty or
lawful exercise of a right.

Incomplete justification is a special or privileged mitigating circumstance, which, not only

cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances but also reduces the penalty by one or two
degrees than that prescribed by law. Hence, Art. 69 is applicable, although its "that the majority
of such conditions be present," is immaterial since there are only two (2) conditions that may
be taken into account under Art. 11, par. 5. Article 69 is obviously in favor of the accused as it
provides for a penalty lower than that prescribed by law when the crime committed is not
wholly justifiable.

G.R. No. 153287 June 30, 2008

NOEL GUILLERMO y BASILIANO, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:
Petitioner Guillermo and 2 others were convicted of homicide for killing Winnie Alon. Among
the 3, only Guillermo was found guilty of homicide attended by a special or privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete justification, and without any aggravating or mitigating
circumstances attendant, he is imposed an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, with the
corresponding accessory penalties, and to pay death indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of
Winnie Alon, in the service of his sentence he shall be credited the period that he undergone
[sic] preventive imprisonment, conformably with Art. 29 of the Code.

ISSUE:

WHETHER the RTC and the CA erred in failing to recognize the existence of all the elements of
self-defense.

RULING:

NO. As a justifying circumstance, self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is complete

when all the three essential requisites are present; it is incomplete when the mandatory
element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, plus any one of the two essential
requisites. The third element – the reasonableness of the means to repel the aggression – is the
critical element that the lower courts found lacking in the petitioner’s case. In the instant case
there was no rational equivalence between the means of the attack and the means of defense
sufficient to characterize the latter as reasonable.

Since the petitioner’s plea of self-defense lacks only the element of "reasonable means," the
petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
defense. Consequently, the penalty for homicide may be lowered by one or two degrees, at the
discretion of the court.

G.R. No. L-30801 March 27, 1974

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
DOMINGO URAL, accused-appellant

FACTS:

Ural maltreated Napola and set him on fire inside the detention cell. When Ural started to
notice the serious consequence of his act, he tried to remove Napola’s burning shirt and put the
fire out. Napola sustained second-degree burns. Despite of the medical attention given, Napola
died almost a month after the incident. CFI convicted Ural of murder which the affirmed by the
SC. SC recognized the abuse of position as aggravating circumstance which was offset by the
lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, a mitigating circumstance.

ISSUE:

Whether the mitigating circumstance under article 13 par. 3 should be appreciated.

RULING:

YES. The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position (Art
14(1), RPC) but it failed to appreciated the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed." (Art.13(3), RPC). The intention, as an internal act, is
judged not only by the proportion of the means employed by him to the evil produced by his
act, but also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body. Thus, it
may be deduced from the proven facts that the accused had no intent to kill the victim, his
design being only to maltreat him, such that when he realized the fearful consequences of his
felonious act, he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of
abuse of his official position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua
which is the medium period of the penalty for murder (Arts 64(4) and 248, RPC)

G.R. No. 139542 June 21, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
INOCENCIO GONZALEZ, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS:

On a day intended to pay homage to the dead, a pregnant woman was shot to death in the
course of her husband’s altercation with the accused-appellant and his son along the Garden of
Remembrance within the Loyola Memorial Park in Marikina. The trial court found the accused
guilty of the complex crime of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and accordingly
sentenced him to death. The appellant seeks to be exempted from criminal liability contending
that he had no intention to shoot noel andres much less his wife nor the children.

ISSUE:

Whether The trial court committed reversible error when it failed to appreciate the
mitigating circumstances of par.1, 3,4 and 6, 7 article 13 of the RPC

RULING:
NO. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation, incomplete
defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, pleaded by the defense,
were not convincingly proved and none can be considered in the imposition of penalties. The
testimony of prosecution witness contradicts the appellant’s pretense of voluntary surrender.
Witness Ramos testified that the appellant drove away towards the gate of the memorial park
while he was questioning him after the shooting and had not Noel Andres and onlookers
blocked his path the appellant could have fled the scene of the crime.

G.R. No. L-32040 October 25, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PEDRO PAGAL y MARCELINO and JOSE TORCELINO y TORAZO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:

the accused, Pedro Pagal y Marcelino and Jose Torcelino y Torazo were charged with the crime
of robbery with homicide for killing Gau Guan after they robbed him. Thereafter, the accused
presented evidence to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part
of the victim immediately preceding the act and acting upon an impulse so powerful as to
produce passion and obfuscation. RTC disregarded and ruled against them with aggravating
circumstance.

ISSUE/S:

Whether the rtc erred in not appreciating in their favor the mitigating circumstances of
sufficient provocation, and passion or obfuscation.

RULING:

NO. Again, the appeflants'contention is devoid of merit. Firstly, since the alleged provocation
which caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the
alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the deceased, these two
mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and separate circumstances but
should be treated as one. 11 Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be
mitigating in a crime which — as in the case at bar — is planned and calmly meditated before
its execution. Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and
immediately proceeding the act. We hold that the trial court did not commit any error in not
appreciating the said mitigating circumstances in favor of the appellants.

G.R. No. 182750 January 20, 2009

RODEL URBANO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Responde

FACTS:

In an Information filed before the RTC, petitioner was charged with Homicide For killing Brigido
Tomelden. Petitioner and Tomelden had an altercation that led into an exchange of blows.
Petitioner delivered a lucky punch which made the victim unconscious which led to his death.
The defense presented petitioner who denied having any intention to kill, asserting that
hypertension, for which Tomelden was receiving treatment, was the cause of the latter’s death.

ISSUE:

WHETHER the mitigating circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a wrong and

sufficient provocation on the part of the victim ought to be appreciated in petitioner’s favor

RULING:

YES. The provocation came from Tomelden. In fact, petitioner, being very much smaller in
height and heft, had the good sense of trying to avoid a fight. But as events turned out, a
fisticuff still ensued, suddenly ending when petitioner’s lucky punch found its mark. Moreover,
the mitigating circumstance that petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed should also be appreciated in his favor. While intent to kill may be presumed
from the fact of the death of the victim, this mitigating factor may still be considered when
attendant facts and circumstances so warrant, as in the instant case.