Case Title People v Gonzales

G.R. no. GR L-139542

Main Topic Mitigating Circumstances; Lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong
Other Related Topic
Date: June 21, 2001

DOCTRINES

LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG; TO BE APPRECIATED

THERE MUST BE NOTABLE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO
COMMIT A WRONG AND THE RESULTING CRIME COMMITTED; CASE AT BAR. —
The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong is likewise devoid of merit. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when
there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong
and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission
of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the injury
sustained by the victim. The appellant's use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor
employed in the shooting, should have reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the
possible consequences of his act. The use of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes
committed.|||

FACTS:
After their vehicles almost collided with each other, Andres and Appellant had an altercation.
Thereafter, Andres went back inside to his car when he was blocked by the appellant’s son
who said, "Anong problema mo sa erpat ko." Andres testified that he felt threatened and so he
immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the driver’s seat, closed the door, and partially opened
the car window just wide enough to talk back to appellant’s son, Dino.

In the meantime, appellant, thinking that Andres was going to get something from his car, took
a gun. However, he was pushed by his daughter-in-law which made him lost his balance and
accidentally fired the gun hitting Andres’ wife, and two sons.

Appellant was charged and convicted of Murder, Double Frustrated Murder and Attempted
Murder in the RTC. The appellant seeks a reversal and prays that judgment be rendered
exempting him from criminal and civil liabilities contending that he had no intention to shoot
Noel Andres much less his wife nor the children. He lost his balance when his daughter Trisha
approached and pushed him backwards to stop him from joining Dino and Noel Andres but the
appellant tried to free his right hand holding the gun and it accidentally fired.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit
so grave a wrong?
 HELD:
No. The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong is likewise devoid of merit. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when
there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong
and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission
of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the injury
sustained by the victim. The appellant's use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor
employed in the shooting, should have reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the
possible consequences of his act. The use of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes
committed.|||