THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. GINES S.

ALBAQUERQUE
G.R. NO. 38773 CONCEPCION J.

FACTS:
The defendant, Gines Albaquerque is a widower of 55-year-old and a father of
nine living children. He has been suffering from partial paralysis for some time
and as a result, he lost the control of his right arm after suffering a stroke.
Some time in 1928, one of the defendants daughters, Pilar, had a romantic
relationship with the now deceased victim, Manuel Osma. During the course of
their relationship, the defendants daughter, Pilar, was impregnated but did not
inform her father even after giving birth.
The defendant wrote letters to the deceased which were hostile and threatening at
times and other times entreating (requesting) the deceased to legitimize his union
with Pilar by marrying her, or at lease support her and his child.
The defendant then negotiated with the deceased to give a monthly allowance or
marry his daughter, the deceased however did not comply.
The defendant then confronted the deceased at his office and asked to talk in
private. The conversation then led to the death of Manuel Osma after the
defendant unwillingly stabbed his penknife at the base of the deceaseds neck.
Upon seeing the attitude of the defendant, the deceased seized Gines by the neck
whereupon Gines stabbed him on the face with the penknife. BUT due to his lack
of control of the movt of his arm, the weapon landed on the base of the neck of
Osma.
Gines alleged that he did not intend to cause so grave an injury as the death of
Osma.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant, Gines Albaquerque is guilty of homicide even if
he did not intend to kill but to harm instead.

RULING: Yes, even if the defendant claims it was out of self-defense, he provoked and
commenced the aggression by brandishing his penknife. But the (1) mitigating
circumstances of lack of intention to cause so grave an injury as to the death of the
deceased, (2) defendants act of voluntarily surrendering himself to the authorities, and
(3) him having acted under the influence of passion and confusion should accord the
defendant a lowering in the degree of penalty imposed upon him.

Art 13 (3), RPC:

Mitigating Circumstances the ff are mitigating circumstances:
(3) that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

Article 49, RPC:

Penalty To Be Imposed Upon The Principals When The Crime Committed Is Different
From That Intended. In cases in which the felony committed is different from that
which the offender intended to commit, the ff rules shall be observed:
(1) if the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
(2) if the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
(3) the rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if
the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of
another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in
which case the penalty provided for the attempt or the frustrated crime shall be imposed
in its maximum period.

The conviction of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion
temporal. The decision however is indeterminate of the penalty of one year prision
correccional to eight years and one day prision mayor.