PEOPLE vs.

IGNAS
G.R. 140514-15
SEPTEMBER 20, 2003
(Mitigating & Aggravating Circumstance)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Sometime in September 1995, Wilma Grace Ignas confided to her close

friend named Romenda Foyagao that the former is having an affair with
Nemesio Lopate. And when Romenda went back to Taiwan, she received four
letters from Wilma Ignas, two of which are written instructions of Wilma for
Romenda to reveal to her husband, herein Appellant, her affair with Nemesio.
But it was only sometime late in February 1996 that Romenda followed the
instruction of her friend Wilma, and informed Appellant about the
aforementioned extramarital affair between Wilma and Nemesio. Upon hearing
the information confided by Romenda, Appellant became furious, he then
declared that he is going to kill Nemesio.

Consequently, on March 10, 1996 at around 10 P.M., according to Annie

Bayanes, when she was at the unloading area at the Trading Post of La
Trinidad, Benguet, she heard two gunshots. After which, Bayanes turned
towards the place where the sound of the gunshots came from, she then saw a
person falling to the ground and another person who was standing behind the
fallen individual. Bayanes said that she recognized the man standing as the
appellant June Ignas. And another person present at the unloading area that
night, named Marlon Manis, had the same testimony as that of Bayanes, and
he then further testified that the fallen victim he saw was Nemesio Lopate
whom he had known since Grade 2 in elementary school.

Then, another prosecution witness named Mona Barredo declared that

appellant came to her residence 30 mins. after the aforementioned crime has
been committed. She further declared that appellant took out a handgun from
his jacket, removed the empty shells from the chamber, and told the former to
throw the empty cartridges out of the window. And out of nervousness, she
complied. Barredo also said that appellant disclosed to her that he shot his
wife’s paramour. Later on, Police investigators recovered the spent gun shells
from Barredo’s sweet potato garden.

Two more witnesses, Bayacsan and Pauline Gumpic, testified that

appellant disclosed to them that he indeed killed Nemesio. And, SPO4 Arthur
Bomagao of the La Trinidad Police who investigated the fatal shooting of
Nemesio, declared that appellant voluntarily admitted to him that he shot the
victim with .38 caliber handgun, and that appellant surrendered to him the
letters of Wilma Grace where it was admitted by the latter that she was having
an affair with Nemesio.

Appellant, on the other hand, interposed the defense of alibi. He averred

that he was baking bread with Anoma in Kayapa on the night Nemesio was
killed. Under oath, appellant said he never left Kayapa since his arrival there.
He further testified that he and Anoma were engrossed in baking bread, until
the Policemen brought him back to Benguet for questioning. Defense witness
Ben Anoma Corroborated Appellant’s alibi.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Trial Court committed reversible error when it

appreciated the alleged use of an unlicensed .38 calibre firearm as an
aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime of murder
without any factual and legal basis.

2. Whether or not the Trial Court committed reversible error when it did not
appreciate in favour of the Accused-Appellant the Mitigating
Circumstances of (a) immediate vindication of a grave offense, (b)
passion and obfuscation and (c) voluntary surrender.

RULING OF SC:

1. In the first issue raised, the Supreme Court ruled that:

“We find merit in the appellants contentions. It is not enough that the
special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm be
alleged in the information, the matter must be proven with the same
quantum of proof as the killing itself... The records do not show that
the prosecution presented any evidence to prove that appellant is not
a duly licensed holder of a calibre .38 firearm… Absent the proper
evidentiary proof, this Court cannot validly declare that the special
aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was
satisfactorily established by the Prosecution. Hence, such special
circumstance cannot be considered for purposes of imposing the
penalty in its maximum period.”

2. As for the second issue, however, the Supreme Court ruled that:

a. “The Solicitor General counters that there was literally no

immediate vindication to speak of in this case. Appellant had
sufficient time to recover his serenity following the discovery of his
wife’s infidelity.

…We agree with the Solicitor General that the lapse of two (2)
weeks between his discovery of his wife’s infidelity and the killing
of her supposed paramour could no longer be considered
proximate. The passage of a fortnight is more than sufficient time
for appellant to have recovered his composure and assuaged the
ease of his mind. The established rule is that there can be no
immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had
sufficient time to recover his serenity. Thus, in this case, we hold
that the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a
grave offense cannot be considered in appellants favor.”

b. “We likewise find the alleged mitigating circumstance of passion

and obfuscation inexistent. The rule is that the mitigating
circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and passion and
obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they arise from
the same facts or motive. In other words, if appellant attacked his
victim in proximate vindication of a grave offense, he could no
 longer claim in the same breath that passion and obfuscation also
blinded him.”

c. “On this point, the following requirements must be satisfied: (1) the
offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender
was voluntary. Records show, however, that leaflets and posters
were circulated for information to bring the killer of Nemesio to
justice. A team of police investigators from La Trinidad, Benguet
then went to Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya to invite appellant for
questioning. Only then did he return to Benguet. But he denied the
charge of killing the victim. Clearly, appellants claimed surrender
was neither spontaneous nor voluntary.”

And so, there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, June

Ignas was found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
HOMICIDE.