Características generales

Maria Fe. He poked the said gun on Maria Fe. She woke up and attempted to stand up but Manuel ordered her to lie down. Manuel ordered Jose Baylosis to tie her hands and put a tape on her mouth. On orders of Manuel, Jose woke up Leo and brought him to the room. Jose tied the hands of Leo behind his back. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace, rings and earrings. They ransacked the room but failed to find money. Julifer woke up but Manuel and Jose threatened to kill her if she shouted. The two tied Julifer‘s hands at her back. Manuel threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his body. Ronito could only groan like a dying pig. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the latter‘s wristwatch and ring. Manuel then untied Julifer removed her clothes and panties and then raped her. She could do nothing but cry. Manuel and Jose stayed in the house until 4:00 a.m. Before they left, Manuel and Jose told Maria Fe that they were acting on orders of Rolando Pedrejas, Joel Colejara, Grace Pabulacion and Juliet Capuno

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Manuel admitted having killed Ronito. He however claimed that he stabbed Ronito in self-defense and in defense of Jose. He also said that he, Potot, Ronito and Jojo, the younger brother of Maria Fe, had been engaged in robberies in. Sometime in September 1995, the four robbed a person of P50,000. However, Manuel failed to get his share of the loot while Ronito, Jojo and Potot got theirs. Manuel was bitter. He later learned in December 1995 that Ronito and Maria Fe had left Davao City and settled in Cebu City. On March 26, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in Cebu City to contact Ronito and to get his share of the loot. Manuel met Ronito on March 29, 1996 at the jai-alai. Ronito told Manuel to visit him where they can talk. Manuel agreed. In the evening on March 30, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in the house of Ronito. Manuel wanted to get his share of the loot from Ronito. Manuel, Jose and Ronito had a drinking spree. However, at about two o‘clock at dawn, the next morning, Manuel and Ronito had an altercation when Manuel demanded that Ronito give him his share of the loot. Ronito was peeved and told Manuel that he had long given him his share through a friend. Ronito whipped out a knife and stabbed Manuel. The latter tried to wrest the knife from Ronito but failed. However, Jose grappled with Ronito and managed to wrest possession of the knife. Jose then gave the knife to Manuel who stabbed Ronito with it.

Manuel denied raping Julifer, and divesting Ronito and Maria Fe of their valuables. Jose did not anymore testify

HELD:The appellants are not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guiltyon the finding of the Court that the plea of guilty of the appellants was improvidently made. Besides, when the appellants changed their plea, the prosecution had already commenced presenting its evidence. Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.

PEOPLE vIBAÑEZ [G.R. Nos. 133923-24. July 30, 2003] FACTS:Felix Olanda, in his early eighties, and wife Rosario, 72 were soundly asleep when Felix suddenly felt somebody hack him. Felix recognized appellant who used to reside in the house of their neighbor. He went to the main door of their house and asked for help. He saw his wife already dead.

Earlier on the same date, appellant went to the house of Juanito Sarmiento. Sarmiento saw appellant with scratches on his legs, knees and arms. Ibañez told him that he escaped from his

employer who is a palay dealer and asked for money in order to go to Umangan. Sarmiento gave himP20.00. On October 20, 1996, Sarmiento reported the incident to the police. When he was shown the items recovered from the crime scene – bolo, maong pants, t-shirt, and belt – he recognized them to be those of appellant. Atty. Gavino Villanueva assisted appellant in the execution of the extrajudicial confession of his guilt to the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.

ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT AND INTOXICATION IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.

HELD: Appellant‘s plea of guilty to the two charges against him must be taken into consideration

in imposing the proper penalty on him.

Under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, a plea of guilty on arraignment is a mitigating

circumstance. To effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty must be

made at the first opportunity, indicating repentance on the part of the accused.Article 13(7) requires that the offender voluntarily confesses his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. A plea of guilty made after arraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.In this case, appellant pleaded guilty upon being arraigned and before the prosecution had presented witnesses. Thus, the trial court erred in not taking said mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant.

Juanito Ibañez GUILTY of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

PHYSICAL DEFECT AND ILLNESS PEOPLE v JAVIER 311 SCRA 576 Dec 1954: Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier was married to Florentina Laceste. They begot 10 children. On June ‘96, after 41 yrs of marriage, Javier admitted killing his wife.

 Testimonies of SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, a desk investigator, and Consolacion Javier Panit &

Alma Javier, daughters of the sps:

o Between 2–3am, Consolacion, who lived 10-15m. away, heard her mom shouting, ―your

father is going to kill me!‖ (translated from local dialect). She ran outside & met her sister Alma who was weeping & informed her of their parents‘ quarrel. Together, they went to their brother Manuel‘s house, about 70-80m. away from their parents‘ house.

o Upon reaching the latter, Manuel, who entered first, found the lifeless body of his mother in

their bedroom and his father, wounded in the abdomen.

o Their father, Eduardo, confessed to son Manuel that he killed his wife and thereafter

stabbed himself..

 In his appeal, Javier claims he killed his wife because he was suffering from insomnia for a

month and at the time of the killing, his mind went totally blank and he did not know what he was doing. He claims that he was insane then.

Issues and Ratio:

1. WON Javier can claim mitigating circumstances of illness and of passion and obfuscation

No to both. On illness, since Javier has already admitted to the killing, it is incumbent upon him

to prove the claimed mitigating circumstance. OSG found no sufficient evidence or medical finding to support his claim. For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the ff requisites:

 Illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender, and  Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.

For the circumstance of passion and obfuscation of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the ff requisites:

 There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind, and  Such act w/c produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the

crime by a considerable length of time; during w/c the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.

The defense never presented any medical record of the accused nor was a psychiatrist presented to validate the defense of insanity. None of the elements-requisites were proved to be present & in his testimony, Javier even stated that he was not jealous of his wife. Equally important, the defense, during the trial, never alleged the above-claimed mitigating circumstances of illness & passion & obfuscation, thus weakening the case of accused-appellant. The alleged mitigating circumstances are mere afterthought to whittle (to shape) down his criminal liability.

PEOPLE v PARAZO [GR 121176 July 8, 1999]