Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Jaurigue
February 21, 1946]
[C.A.
No.
384,
Facts:
Inside the chapel of the 7th day Adventist
Church, Amado Capina sat beside the appellant
and with the greatest of impudence, placed his
hand on the upper part of her right thigh. On
observing this highly improper and offensive
conduct, Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her
personal dignity and honor, pulled out a fan
knife and stabbed Amado once at the base of
the left side of the neck Amado Capina died
from the wound a few minutes later. Appellant
Avelina Jaurigue was subsequently tried and
convicted of the crime of Homicide.
Issue: Whether or not appellant Jaurige acted
in the legitimate defense of her honor and that
she should be completely absolved of all
criminal responsibility
Ruling:
No. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The
attempt to rape a woman constitutes an
unlawful aggression sufficient to put her in a
state of legitimate defense inasmuch as a
woman's honor cannot but be esteemed as a
right as precious, if not more than her very
existence; and it is evident that a woman who,
thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender,
should be afforded exemption from criminal
liability, since such killing cannot be considered
a crime from the moment it became the only
means left for her to protect her honor from so
great an outrage (1 Viada, Codigo Penal, 5th
ed., p. 301; People vs. Luague and Alcansare,
62 Phil., 504). As long as there is actual danger
of being raped, a woman is justified in killing
her aggressor in the defense of her
honor. When the deceased sat by the side of
the appellant on the same bench, near the
door of the barrio chapel and placed his hand
on the upper portion of her right thigh without
her consent, the said chapel was lighted with
electric lights, and there were already several
people inside the chapel, including her own
father and the barrio lieutenant and other
dignitaries of the organization; and under the
circumstances, there was and there could be
no possibility of her being raped. And when she
Issues:
1. WON CFI erred in convicting defendantappellant despite the fact that he acted
in defense of his person.
2. WON the court erred in convicting
defendant-appellant although he acted
in defence of his rights.
3. WON he should be liable for subsidiary
imprisonment since he is unable to pay
the civil indemnity due to the offended
party.
Ruling:
1. No. The courts concurred that the fencing
and chiselling of the walls of the house of
the defendant was indeed a form of
aggression on the part of the victim.
However, this aggression was not done on
the person of the victim but rather on his
rights to property. On the first issue, the
courts
did
not
err.
However,
in
consideration of the violation of property
rights, the courts referred to Art. 30 of the
civil code recognizing the right of owners to
close and fence their land. Although is not
in dispute, the victim was not in the
position to subscribe to the article because
his ownership of the land being awarded by
the government was still pending, therefore
putting ownership into question. Its
accepted that victim was the original
aggressor.
2.
possession
b) Reasonable
necessity
of
means
employed to prevent or repel attack. In
case, killing was disproportionate to
attack.
c) Lack of sufficient provocation on part of
person defending himself. Here, there
was no provocation at all since he was
asleep
Since not all requisites present, defendant
is credited w/ the special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense,
pursuant to A13(6) RPC. These mitigating
circumstances are: voluntary surrender &
passion & obfuscation (read p. 405
explanation)
Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder
because treachery is not applicable on
account of provocation by the deceased.
Also, assault wasnt deliberately chosen
with view to kill since slayer acted
instantaneously. There was also no direct
evidence of planning or preparation to kill.
Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal. However, due to
mitigating circumstances and incomplete
defense, it can be lowered 3 degrees (Art.
64) to arresto mayor.
3.
the
accused
acted
with
w/o
previous
quarrel
or
provocation
whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the
house & stabbed his wife Julia, in the back, the
blade penetrating the right lung & causing a
severe hemorrhage resulting in her death.
Abelardo then took his dead wife & laid her on
the floor of the living room & then lay down
beside her. In this position, he was found by the
people who came in response to the shouts
made by his eldest daughter, Irene Formigones.
The motive was admittedly that of jealousy
because according to his statement, he used to
have quarrels with his wife for reason that he
often saw her in the company of his brother,
Zacarias; that he suspected the 2 were
maintaining illicit relations because he noticed
that his wife had become indifferent to him.
During the preliminary investigation, the
accused pleaded guilty. At the case in the CFI,
he also pleaded guilty but didnt testify. His
counsel presented the testimony of 2 guards of
the provincial jail where Abelardo was confined
to the effect that his conduct was rather
strange & that he behaved like an insane
person, at times he would remain silent, walk
around stark naked, refuse to take a bath &
wash his clothes etc... The appeal is based
merely on the theory that the appellant is an
IMBECILE & therefore exempt from criminal
liability under RPC A12.
Issue: WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time
of the commission of the crime, thus exempted
from criminal liability
Held: No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr.
Francisco
Gomes,
although
he
was
feebleminded, he is not an imbecile as he could
still distinguish between right & wrong & even
feel remorse. In order that a person could be
regarded as an imbecile w/in the meaning of
RPC A12 so as to be exempt from criminal
liability, he must be deprived completely of
reason or discernment & freedom of will at the
time of committing the crime. (Note that
definition is same as insanity)
As to the strange behavior of the accused
during his confinement, assuming it was not
People vs Toledo
Facts:
This is a case of homicide against Toledo.
Morales and Holgado agreed to a bolo duel
over a parcel of land.Toledo allegedly
intervened in the duel that dealt a mortal blow
to Morales. Holgado executed a written
testimony that during the duel there is no one
present but him and the victim.
Issue:
Whether or not the statement executed by
Holgado (a statement of fact against penal
interest) be admitted as evidence.
Held:
Any man outside of a court and unhampered by
the
pressure
of
technical
procedure,
unreasoned rules of evidence, and cumulative
authority, would say that if a man deliberately
acknowledged himself to be the perpetrator of
a crime and exonerated the person charged
with the crime, and there was other evidence
indicative of the truthfulness of the statement,
the accused man should not be permitted to go
should
be
HELD
Yes. At the time of the commission of
the crime, petitioners were minors. By
provisions of RA 9344, they are exempted from
liability but not from criminal liability. Their
exemption however differs. In the case of
Raymund, the case is dismissed as to him since
he was below 15 years old. He is to be released
and custody is given to the parents by virtue of
RA 9344 Secs. 6 and 20 setting the minimum
2.
3.