8

Roberto Licyayo vs. People

GR No. 169425 | March 4, 2008
Petitioner invokes mitigating circumstances a.) Sufficient provocation and b.)
Intoxication
FACTS.
On February 16, 1992, after attending a wedding, Rufino Guay, along with his
friends, Jeffrey Malingan and Joel Dumangeng, went to Natamas Store in a public
market to drink some gin. Shortly thereafter, petitioner Roberto Licyayo, Paul
Baguilat and Oliver Buyayo arrived at the same store and likewise ordered gin.
Later, Robertos group left the store. Subsequently, Rufinos group also adjourned
their drinking session and dropped by another store wherein, incidentally, Robertos
group is also present together with his brother Aron Licyayo. A brawl suddenly
ensued between Rufino and Aron, Rufino fell to the ground, Aron then placed
himself on top of Rufino and punched him several times. Jeffrey approached to stop
the two but Paul punched him on the head.
Police officers Joseph Danglay, Miguel Buyayo, and Alfonso Baguilat immediately
rushed to the scene and saw petitioner Roberto holding a 6-inch double bladed knife
and walking towards Rufino and Aron who were still wrestling with each other.
Officer Buyayo attempted to stop Roberto to no avail. Roberto proceeded and
stabbed Rufino in different parts of the body which caused his death later on.
Petitioner Roberto claims that there was sufficient provocation on Rufinos part for
having attacked his brother Aron Licyayo. The defenses version of the incident was
that Rufino grabbed Arons collar and punched his left cheek and as the latter was
lying on the ground, Rufino and Jeffrey continued to punch him. Roberto pushed
Jeffrey but was overpowered and could not recall anymore the subsequent events
that transpired. He also claims that he was intoxicated during the commission of
the crime.
ISSUE.
WON petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation
and intoxication.
HELD.
The Court ruled that petitioner Roberto cannot invoke the MC of sufficient
provocation because records cannot sufficiently establish who between Rufino and
Aron started the brawl. There was no evidence as to how the quarrel arose. What is
evident is that Rufino and Aron suddenly and unexpectedly grappled.
Petitioner is also not entitled to the MC of intoxication. As a rule, it must be shown
that the intoxication impaired the willpower of the accused and that he did not know
what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. The
person pleading intoxication must prove that he took such quantity of alcoholic

8
beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason. In the
case at bar, it was not established that the amount of alcohol consumed was
enough to impair his reason and affect his mental faculties. On the contrary, the
petitioner can even vividly recall the details that transpired during and after his
drinking session with his friends. That is the best proof that he still knew what he
was doing despite the alcohol he consumed.