Thursday, March 08, 2012

People vs. Javier [G.R. No. 130654 July 28, 1999]

Facts: Eduardo is husband of victim Florentina. Married in 1854. 47 years of marriage. 10 children. On June 15 Consolacion heard her mother saying “Your father is going to kill me”. Her sister, Alma is weeping and told her that their parents are quarrelling. They went to the house of their brother Manuel and when they came back they saw their mother dead. And their father has a wounded stomach. He admitted hacking his wife and stabbed himself afterwards. 

He was brought to the hospital. SPO1 Racho, desk investigator, said that when they went to see the crime scene Manuel told him that Eduardo pleaded guilty and surrendered the bolo. Eduardo said the he haven’t slept for a month and his mind was completely blank when he killed his wife. Trial Court rejected his claim of insanity and sentenced him to death for parricide. 

In this appeal, accused-appellant alleged that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty, considering the presence of two mitigating circumstances of illness of the offender and passion and obfuscation 

Eduardo does not question the rejection of insanity as his defense but he says he was suffering from lost of sleep for a prolonged period of time. He also has suspicion that his wife is having an illicit relationship, aggravated with his illness, goaded him to commit the crime. 

Issue: Whether or not there is a mitigating circumstance of illness and passion and obfuscation 

Held: None. 


For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. 

The defense failed to show medical evidence and since he remembered the vital circumstances surrounding the ghastly incident, from the time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital, it shows that he was in full control of his mental faculties 


In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and to obfuscation, the following elements should concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity. Elements were not proved, he even said that he was not jealous of his wife. 

In this case, the information for parricide against accused-appellant did not allege any aggravating circumstance. Nor did the evidence show that the prosecution was able to prove any aggravating circumstance. Likewise, no mitigating circumstance is appreciated by this Court in favor of the accused-appellant. Thus, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance for the accused-appellant, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. 

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "People vs. Javier [G.R. No. 130654 July 28, 1999]"

Post a Comment