Case of People of the R.P. vs.

Oriente

G.R.No. 155094 30January2007

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case is about Manuel Oriente’s appeal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. The
appellant w/ other persons, attacked and assaulted Romulo Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe on
different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were
the direct and immediate cause of his death (as confirmed by the medico- legal). In the case there
was one witness for the prosecution; Arnel Tanael.

When the case was tried at the C.A. the court (C.A.) found that the R.T.C erred in finding two
mitigating circumstances were present, namely, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and
sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party, so the court modified the
penalty imposed by the R.T.C.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

[in this particular case there are a number of issues, but the most compelling is the 2nd and 4th
issues]

DID THE C.A. AND THE R.T.C ERR IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS AN
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM, AND THE MEANS
EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT TO PREVENT THE SAME WAS REASONABLE AND
FALLS UNDER THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OR SELF-DEFENSE

- No. Since when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show
that the killing is legally justified. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The
appellant cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.

- All three requirements for self- defense must concur; but unlawful aggression is condition sine
qua non.

- The fact that the deceased was not able to make use of his gun after being hit in the forehead by
the weapon of the appellant as alleged by the defense makes their claim of self-defense unusual

- Injuries sustained by the deceased were extensive

- Importantly, the appellant failed to establish the existence of the gun, that was alleged to have
constituted the “unlawful aggression”

CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY OF MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCE, DUE TO THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS LACK OF INTENT IN
THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AND THAT
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE DECEASED?
- Modification of the penalties was based on the presence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.

- The claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated because the acts
employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the
death of the victim

- Provocation in this case cannot be appreciated as well since provocation is deemed sufficient if
it is adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, w/c must be proportionate in gravity

- The fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by itself the sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party as contemplated by law. Also, appellant failed to
establish by competent evidence that the deceased had a gun and used it to threaten petitioner.

HELD:

PETITION DENIED. DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF C.A. ARE AFFIRMED W/

MODIFICATIONS, the C.A. erred in imposing 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as
the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. In the computation of the maximum term, the
law prescribes that the attending circumstances should be considered. There being no
aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the penalty that should be imposed is the
medium period of the penalty prescribed by law, that is, reclusion temporal in its medium period,
or, anywhere between fourteen years, eight months and one day to seventeen years and four
months