Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Regulacion
FACTS:
While Alfredo, Cayetano, Romualdo, and Manuel were eating and drinking, and while the music was playing,
Romualdo asked if he could dance with Alfredos daughter. Alfredo demurred as his daughter didnt known
how to dance. Cayetano insisted that Romualdo dance with Alfredos daughter, anyway, Cayetano
reasoned, my nephew is already thru with your daughter and someday, well be in-laws. Alfredo stood up in
anger as he threw a glass of beer. Likewise, Cayetano stood up and the two were about to fight when their
companions prevented them. When Cayetano was about to leave, he said Time will come that well meet.
The eating and drinking continued until Romualdo asked to leave. Alfredo insisted on accompanying him, and
so it was. As they were travelling, Manuel asked to be dropped at their house as his jealous wife might be
worrying. Alfredo refused, and made Manuel agree that instead, the former himself would inform Manuels
wife.
When a certain Hugo saw that Alfredo is coming, he warned Cayetano, but the latter said We are not
enemies. However, Alfredo shot Cayetano from behind.
ISSUE: Whether or not mitigating circumstance of having acted in vindication of a grave offense may be
availed of?
RULING: Yes. Alfredo was embarrassed by the utterance of these words. He sought to vindicate the honor of
his family and appease his self respect when he killed the deceased. In fact, Alfredo and Cayetano would
have fought each other had not their companions separated them. Thus, Alfredo acted in proximate
vindication of a grave offense committed by Cayetano against the honor if his daughter.
People vs. Ignas
FACTS:
Ignas was married to Wilma. Wilma was however an unfaithful wife, for he was having an affair with
Nemensio. Two nights before Wilma have left for Taiwan, together with Nemensio, and Romenda, they stayed
at Dangwa Inn. Nemensio and Wilma shared a room.
When Wilma was already at Taiwan, Romenda received a letter from Wilma, instructing the former to reveal
the extra-marital affair to Juan. Upon the information, Juan said I will kill Nemesio.
After two weeks, Juan killed Nemesio.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense?
RULING: None. The word immediate or proxima in Spanish, allows a lapse of time between the grave
offense and the actual vindication. However, the lapse of two weeks between the discovery of the wifes
infidelity and killing 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 unease in 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.
People vs Ventura
FACTS: Felix Ventura and Johanna were husband and wife.
Arante Flores went to see his uncle, Felix. The two conversed and Arante confirmed that Johanna was having
an illicit affair with Jaime. He knew this for he was working at the meat shop of the Bocateja spouses.
Eventually, the two decided to confront Jaime. After five (5) days, they went to Bocatejas place.
It was about 2 A.M., when Jaime Bocateja was awakened by the stealthy entrance of Felix and Arante into his
house. Felix pointed a gun to Jaime and announced a hold-up. Aileen was awakened as well, and began
shouting for her husband was in danger. Arante stabbed Aileen.
Aileen died. Jaime remained in the hospital for six days.
ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation is present?
RULING: No. Jealousy may give rise to passion or obfuscation. However, for this to qualify as mitigating
circumstance, the time between the act which produced the obfuscation and the crime must not be sufficient
for the accused to recover his normal equanimity and composure.
RULING: Yes. Although the confession was qualified and introduction of evidence became necessary, the
qualification must not deny the defendants guilt. It is not the fault of the defendant that an aggravating
circumstance was erroneously alleged in the information, thus, he should not be deprived of the benefit of
plea of guilt if in such case, he had to present evidence to counteract such unfounded allegations of
aggravating circumstances.
Yes. Benjamin was discredited and degraded in front of his brother-in-law. He was also pressured to produce
the money demanded by Henry. Consequently, he became depressed. Furthermore, when he asked Henry to
give him more time, Henry refused to do so. It is not normal for any person under such circumstances to be
happy. Thus, when Benjamin committed the crime, he was driven by passion.
People vs. Saligan
FACTS: Gomez Saligan was convicted for Rape with Homicide. During arraignment, information was merely
read to the appellant whereupon he pleaded guilty. The trial court did not make sure that appellant fully
understood the nature of the grievous charge by law before it is imposed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the confession is admissible?
RULING: No. An unidentified extrajudicial confession is no more admissible than improperly admitted plea of
guilty. Judges are duty-bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he
understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction. Because, material
averments in the information are couched in so technical a language that the ordinary layman may not fully
comprehend their meaning. The case was remanded to court a quo for new arraignment and further
proceedings.
People vs. Abrea
FACTS: During arraignment, Alberto entered the plea of guilty. The trial court asked him if he understands the
meaning of his plea of guilt. Moreover, he is informed that by such plea to the amended information, he may
suffer a maximum penalty of death. Lastly, the court informed him that he can still be allowed to withdraw his
previous plea of guilty to one of not guilty if that be his desire. However, he did not change his said plea, but
hastened to ask the Court that he be accorded leniency in the imposition of the penalty.
ISSUE: Whether or not admission of material allegations in the information includes qualifying and/or
aggravating circumstances?
RULING: No. The prosecution still has the burden of proving whatever qualifying or aggravating circumstances
the case may have, apart from the plea of guilt. This prevents miscarriage of justice because of false
confessions. Therefore, the prosecution has to present evidence to substantiate the allegations in the
information and thus guard against improvident admissions of guilt.
People vs. Apduhan
FACTS: One night, the accused, armed with unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, entered
the house of Honorato and Antonia, and killed Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton who happened to be in the
said place that time.
ISSUES: Whether or not there is mitigating circumstance of intoxication?
Whether or not the prosecution had to prove the aggravating circumstance when there is an unqualified plea
of guilty?
RULING: None. Intoxication was not competently proven where the only evidence was that the defendant took
young coconuts before they committed the crime. There is no mention about taking of any liquor, nor any
evidence to counteract the alleged intoxication.
On the part of the accused, he was not able to prove the presence of this mitigating circumstance.
No. An unqualified plea constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including
the aggravating circumstances therein recited.
4