The People of the Philippines v.
Pablo Samonte
Title G.R. L-31225
Passion or Obfuscation (JUSTIFYNG CIRCUMSTANCES OF SELF-
DEFENSE)
Date of the Case June 11, 1975
Facts July 25, 1969
Agustin Santiago, Jr., was fatally shot by the appellant Pablo
Samonte, Jr. at about 11:30 in the evening during a wake being held at
5 Ventanilla Street, Pasay City, for the death of Pablo Samonte, Sr.,
father of herein defendant-appellant.
The aforementioned time and date, the deceased, in the company
of Jesus Dy, David Pagulayan, Angelito Caras and others, agreed to
attend the wake and to extend their condolences to the family of the
departed father of defendant-appellant
Upon arrival, the group stayed within the premises of the wake for
about thirty minutes and after extending their sympathies with the
brother of defendant-appellant, they started to leave.
Jesus Dy, who walked ahead of the group, suddenly heard
somebody shouting, "Ambot, huwag, Ambot, huwag!" (Ambot is the
nickname of appellant Pablo Samonte, Jr.) and then a gunshot
followed. When he turned around to see what the commotion was all
about, he saw Agustin Santiago, Jr. fall. He further saw defendant-
appellant Pablo Samonte, Jr. holding a .45 caliber pistol.
Defendant-appellant after having fired the shot, ran away.
Thereafter, Jesus Dy and his friends brought to the Philippine General
Hospital the bleeding Agustin Santiago, Jr., who was pronounced dead
on arrival.
The shooting incident was reported that same night to the Pasay
City Police Department.
Police Sergeant Calderon, Patrolman Leyba and Patrolman
Morales, assigned to the case, proceeded to the scene of the crime
about 1:00 in the morning and talked to the brother of herein defendant-
appellant, who confirmed the shooting thus reported. They also
gathered from witnesses that one Pablo Samonte, Jr. was the one who
shot the victim
The scene of the incident, the police officers were able to recover
an empty .45 caliber shell and a .22 caliber paltik beside it.
July 26, 1969
The body of the deceased Agustin Santiago, Jr. was brought to the
National Bureau of Investigation for autopsy. Dr. Jesus Crisostomo, NBI
Medical Supervisor, conducted the autopsy on the body of the
deceased and thereafter executed a necropsy report
Cause of death — Gunshot wound perforating the chest and right arm.
whether or not the accused-appellant Pablo Samonte, Jr. acted upon
Issue/s an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obsfucation
Ruling YES
The circumstances surrounding the crime assist to reduce the accused-
appellant's accountability. While the deceased's behavior of causing
problems at the wake of accused-appellant's dead father does not
totally deserve the catastrophe that has befallen him, it cannot be
condoned either. Stirring at a wake scandalizes the mourners and
offends the mourning family's sensitivities. Andres Santiago, an NBI
scientist, testified that the deceased was inebriated at the time. He was
determined to have ethyl alcohol in his blood at the level of 0.145, as
confirmed by his own toxicology result. He went on to say that someone
who isn't used to drinking and consumes such a large amount of
alcohol will be a little disorderly. As a result, given that the deceased's
problem was both illegal and enough to enrage the accused-appellant,
his culpability is lessened by emotion or obfuscation.
Penalties:
APPELLANT PABLO SAMONTE, JR. GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF HOMICIDE, FOR WHICH HE IS HEREBY
SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN INDETERMINATE TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT RANGING FROM 6 YEARS AND 1 DAY OF
PRISION MAYOR, AS MINIMUM, TO 12 YEARS AND 1 OF
RECLUSION TEMPORAL, AS MAXIMUM, WITH THE ACCESSORIES
OF THE LAW, CREDITING HIM HOWEVER WITH HIS PREVENTIVE
IMPRISONMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6127,
TO INDEMNIFY THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED AGUSTIN
SANTIAGO, JR. IN THE AMOUNT OF TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P12,000.00) WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASE OF
INSOLVENCY.
The United States v. Augustus Hicks
Title
G.R. No. 4971
Passion or Obsfucation
September 23, 1909
Date of the Case
Facts For about 5years (September 1902-November 1907) Augustus
Hicks, an afro-american, and Agustinal Sola, a Christian moro woman,
illicitly lived together in the municipality of Parang, Cotabato, Moro
Province, until trouble arising between them in the last-mentioned
month of 1907, Agustina quitted Hick's house, and separating from
him, went to live with her brother-in-law, Lues Corrales. A few days
later she contracted new relations with another negro named Wallace
Current, a corporal in the army who then went to live with her in the
said house. One night, Augustus Hicks went with Lloyd Nickens
to the said house and upon a short conversation with his former
mistress and Current, withdrew a revolver from his trouser’s pocket.
Current caught Hicks’ hand but he was able to snatch his hand away
and fired at Agustina Sola. The bullet struck her in the left side of the
breast, fell to the ground and died a little morethan hour later. Edward
Robinson, who was also in the house, was able to render assistance
and wrested the weapon from the accused. The latter immediately fled
from the house and gave himself up to the chief of police of the town,
H. L. Martin, asking himto lock him up in jail and when a few minutes
later a policeman came running in and reported that Hicks and fired a
shot at Agustina, the said chief of police caused Hicks to be arrested.
Hicks was charged guilty of murder.
Issue/s WON criminal liability can be mitigated due to passion and obfuscation
Ruling NO
loss of reason and self-control produced by jealousy as alleged by the
defense, inasmuch as the only causes which mitigate the criminal
responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as originate
from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious,
unworthy, and immoral passions. Whited, who was in Hicks' house
about noon upon the latter's invitation, and while both where drinking
gin, and while the revolver, the instrumentof the crime, was lying on the
table on which were also several loaded cartridges, heard the accused
repeatedly say, referring to the deceased, that her time had come,
adding that he would rather see her dead than in the arms of another
man, and when the accused went to bed apparently very much worried,
and refusing to answer when called, the witness left him. On the day
after the crime the police found on a table in the culprit's house several
loaded cartridges, a bottle of oil and a piece of cloth used undoubtedly
for cleaning the revolver. All the foregoing circumstances
conclusively prove that the accused, deliberately and after due
reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another
man, and in order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety,
notwithstanding the fact that he was already provided with a clean and
well —prepared weapon and carried other loaded cartridges besides
those already in his revolver, he entered the house, greeting
everyone courteously and conversed withhis victim , in what appeared
to be a proper manner, disguising his intention and calming her by his
apparent repose and tranquillity, doubtless in order to successfully
accomplish his criminal design, behaving himself properly as he had
planned to do beforehand.
Penalty:
Death Penalty and 1,000 cost
The People of the Philippines v. Guillermo Bello
Title (Marasigan)
G.R. No. L-18792
February 28, 1964
Date of the Case
Guillermo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage. Guillermo was a 54 year old widower, and Alicia’s
senior by 30 years. Due to poverty, Alicia became an entertainer/public
hostess at the said bar. On May 16, Guillermo saw Alicia enter
a theater with a man, and surprised the man caressing her inside
the movie house. Guillermo dragged her [Link] May 20, 1958 at
3:00 p.m, Guillermo visited Maring’s Place to ask Alicia for money, but
the owner, Maring, told him to go home and to leave Alicia alone
because he was an old invalid. He proceeded to walk home empty
Facts
handed, but upon passing Bonifacio Street, he came across the
Marasigan brothers who mocked him with a remark “'So this is the
man whose wife is being used by Maring for white slave trade.” The
self-loathing Guillermo proceeded to Paty’s place and drowned five
glasses of [Link] nighttime of the same day, Guillermo returned to
Maring’s Place and stabbed Alicia several times. Realizing what he had
done, he ran to Gumarca and surrendered to the police there. He was
found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Quezon City of murder
attended by the aggravating
Issue/s WON The victim should be given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation, albeit his relationship with the
victim being merely a common-law marriage?
YES
It will be recalled that the lower court found that the
accused had previously reproved the deceased for allowing herself
to be caressed by a stranger. Her loose conduct was forcibly driven
home to the accused by Marasigan's remark on the very day of the
crime that the accused was the husband "whose wife was being used
by Maring for purposes of prostitution", a remark that so deeply
wounded the appellant's feelings that he was driven to consume a large
amount of wine (tuba) before visiting Alicia (the deceased) to plead with
Ruling
her to leave her work. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison with
the accused, therefore, was not motivated by any desire to lead a
chaste life henceforth, but showed her determination to pursue a
lucrative profession that permitted her to distribute her favors
indiscriminately. We can not see how the accused's insistence that she
live with him again, and his rage at her rejection of the proposal, can be
properly qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions. Even
without benefit of wedlock, a monogamous liaison appears morally of a
higher level than gainful promiscuity.
The People of the Philippines v. Amado
Title “Amado Ato” Daniel
G.R. No. L-40330
Rape
November 20, 1978
Date of the Case
Facts 13 year old Margarita Paleng filed a complaint against Amado
Daniel alias “Amado Ato” for the crime of rape. -On September 20,
1965, Margarita, a native of Mt. Province, arrived in Baguio City from
Tublay in a Dangwa bus. She was then en route to her boarding house
in Guisad as she was a highschool student at the Baguio Eastern
Highschool. While she was waiting inside the bus, the accused Daniel
came and started molesting her by inquiring her name and getting hold
of her bag. She did not allow the latter and instead called the attention
of the bus driver and the conductor but was merely shrugged off by
them. It seemed that they were also afraid of the accused.-Despite the
rain, she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100
meters away. The accused followed her androde and sat beside her.
When Margarita alighted in Guisad, she was again followed by the
accused.
Reaching her boarding house, she opened the door and was
about to close it when the accused dashed in and closed the door
behind him. -He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her
saying, “If you talk, I will kill you.” Because of her fear, Margarita fell
silent. She was then forced to lie down with the accused placing a
handkerchief in her mouth and holding the dagger to her neck. -Her
attempts to flee were to no avail as she was only 4 ft and 8 inches tall
and 95 lbs while Daniel was 5 ft, 7 inches tall and weighed 126 lbs. -
The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of Margarita.
Thereafter she lost consciousness. When she recovered, Daniel had
already gone.-For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and Margarita
have known each other since 1963 and this was in fact the second time
he had carnal knowledge of her. Also, he alleges that he promised to
marry Margarita and was actually surprised that she filed the complaint
against him. -Medico-Legal reportby Dr. Perfecto Micuindicated that
Margarita was a virgin before the incident complained of
Whether or not a boarding house falls within the definition of “dwelling”
Issue/s
in the RPC?
Ruling Yes.
The boarding house falls within the definition of dwelling. The court
explained that generally in a case of this nature, the evidence of the
prosecution consists solely of the testimony of the offended party. The
declaration of the victim, who at the time of the incident was a little less
than 13 years of age, on the basis of which the trial court found the
charge of rape was duly established. Moreover, the issue being one of
credibility, the Courtfind no cogent reasons for discarding the findings of
facts of the trial court which were sustained by the Court of Appeals
after the latter had examined the evidence as a result of which it
certified the case to this [Link],Appellant assails the
veracity of the testimony of the complainant. The court negates that
there could no possible motive a thirteen-year old girl barely in her
teens hasin fabricating a story that could only bring down on her and
her family shame and humiliation and make her an object of gossip and
curiosity among her classmates and the people of her hometown. It
cannot be denied that a public trial involving a crime of this nature
subjects the victim to what can be a harrowing experience of submitting
to a physical examination of her body, an investigation by police
authorities, appearance in court for the hearing where she has to
unravel lewd and hideous details of a painful event which she would
prefer to forget and leave it unknown to others. The Court also finds it
preposterous in the insinuation that this complaint was filed because
appellant had not married the girl although he promised to marry [Link]
the issue of dwelling, although Margarita was merely renting a
bedspace in a boarding house, herroom constituted for all intents and
purposes a “dwelling” as the term used in Art. 14 (3) [Link] Court
said that it is not necessary under the law, that the victim owns the
place where he lives or dwells. But he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-
spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to
protect and uphold. Forall the foregoing the Court holds that the correct
penalty is death pursuant to Art. 335 of the RPC. However, for lack of
necessary number of votes, the penalty next lower in degree is to be
applied.
Penalties:
We affirm the judgment of conviction of Amado Daniel for the crime of
rape as charged, and We sentence him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and order him to indemnify Margarita Paleng by
way of moral damages in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12,000.00) and pay the [Link] Modified.
Title
Date of the Case
Facts
Issue/s
Ruling