The documents discuss several court cases related to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in criminal cases under Philippine law. In the first case, the court found that relationship was not an aggravating circumstance when the victim was a second degree cousin of the accused. In the second case, the court found that relationship between brothers was an aggravating circumstance. In the third case, the court found relationship as an aggravating circumstance when the victim was the natural daughter of the accused. The fourth case found intoxication to be a mitigating circumstance when the intoxication was not habitual. The fifth case did not find lack of instruction to be a mitigating circumstance for robbery, as the accused displayed sufficient intelligence despite limited schooling.
The documents discuss several court cases related to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in criminal cases under Philippine law. In the first case, the court found that relationship was not an aggravating circumstance when the victim was a second degree cousin of the accused. In the second case, the court found that relationship between brothers was an aggravating circumstance. In the third case, the court found relationship as an aggravating circumstance when the victim was the natural daughter of the accused. The fourth case found intoxication to be a mitigating circumstance when the intoxication was not habitual. The fifth case did not find lack of instruction to be a mitigating circumstance for robbery, as the accused displayed sufficient intelligence despite limited schooling.
The documents discuss several court cases related to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in criminal cases under Philippine law. In the first case, the court found that relationship was not an aggravating circumstance when the victim was a second degree cousin of the accused. In the second case, the court found that relationship between brothers was an aggravating circumstance. In the third case, the court found relationship as an aggravating circumstance when the victim was the natural daughter of the accused. The fourth case found intoxication to be a mitigating circumstance when the intoxication was not habitual. The fifth case did not find lack of instruction to be a mitigating circumstance for robbery, as the accused displayed sufficient intelligence despite limited schooling.
The documents discuss several court cases related to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in criminal cases under Philippine law. In the first case, the court found that relationship was not an aggravating circumstance when the victim was a second degree cousin of the accused. In the second case, the court found that relationship between brothers was an aggravating circumstance. In the third case, the court found relationship as an aggravating circumstance when the victim was the natural daughter of the accused. The fourth case found intoxication to be a mitigating circumstance when the intoxication was not habitual. The fifth case did not find lack of instruction to be a mitigating circumstance for robbery, as the accused displayed sufficient intelligence despite limited schooling.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Alternative circumstances
184. G.R. No. L-27401 October 31, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIEGO BALONDO, defendant-appellant.
Facts: Balondo was charged with murder. The trial court provided that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the victim being the niece of the accused. (she was a niece of the accused from a second degree cousin)
Issue: Whether or not the accused is subject to aggravating circumstance of relationship
Held: No, Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration only when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offended
185. G.R. No. 132392 January 18, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR MARCOS Y MON, accused-appellant.
Facts: Marcos was charged with the crime of murder. Accused-appellant Cesar Marcos (Cesar) and the victim Virgilio Marcos (Virgilio) are brothers and they live in the same house at Bayambang, Infanta Pangasinan. The Solicitor General insists that since accused is a brother of the victim, the alternative circumstance of relationship must be considered in determining the imposable penalty.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is subject to aggravating circumstance of relationship
Held: Yes, In order that the alternative circumstance of relationship may be taken into consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, the offended party must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same degree, of the offender.6 In the case at bar, prosecution eyewitness Fernando Marcos, Jr. testified that Cesar and Virgilio Marcos are brothers.7 Accused likewise declared that Virgilio is his brother.8 That the victim is the elder brother of Cesar is likewise alleged in the Information. The rule is that relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons as when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level such as killing a brother.9 Thus, relationship was correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
186. People vs Lucas
Facts: Conrado Lucas was charged by his natural daughter of attempted rape.
Issue: Whether or not the accussed be subject to aggravating circumstance of relative
Held: Yes, The alternative circumstance of relationship provided for in Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code should be appreciated against the accused considering that the offended party, Chanda, is his descendant. In crimes against chastity, such as rape, relationship is aggravating. 188. People vs Diamonon
Facts: Jerberto Diamonon, Ely Calicdan, Jr. and the latter's brother arrived at the Tito Amor's Furniture Shop, located at No. 15-A Matatag St., Pinahan Quezon City. Jerberto Diamonon and Ely Calicdan, Jr. already drunk. Mars saw Diamonon pull out a "patalim," so that he told Macasinag: "Faster, they might overcome us. They might overtake us. But, Macasinag did not believe him. Diamonon overtook Macasinag at the foot of the stairs of the latter's house and immediately stabbed him with a 'patalim," "at the left side lower or below the armpit."
Issue: Whether or not the accused be entitled to mitigation circumstance due to intoxication
Held: Yes, Since the intoxication of the accused was not habitual nor intentional intoxication should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. He is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication. Reynaldo Mars declared that Jerberto Diamonon and Ely Calicdan, Jr. were already drunk when they entered the furniture shop and continued drinking the two bottles of gin they had brought along with them. He further declared that during the time he had known Diamonon, he had not seen him drunk in any other occasion.
Since the intoxication of the accused was not habitual nor intentional intoxication should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
189. People vs Semanada
Facts: Félix Semañada, joined the Hukbalahap organization, apparently, he was unhappy and discontented and oftenly scolded by his parents, so he easily yielded to the propaganda of the Hukbalahap organization, for he did not have the opportunity to obtain any academic schooling except up to Grade II. Félix Semañada, then 19 years of age, and in company of 2 Huks, all armed, arrived at the house of the spouses Serapio Villate and Nieves Magtibay, where they had a store. The couple were taking their supper when Félix Semañada ordered Serapio Villate to go down and, apparently because the latter resisted the order, he was brought down to a distance of about an arm’s length from his house. Once there he was seized and hogtied by Commanders Wennie and Heling with a string used for fishing. As his companions held the victim Semañada stabbed Villate several times with a sharp pointed bolo measuring about a palm’s length (dangkal).
After the killing of Serapio Villate, Félix Semañada and his companions went up the victim’s house. There Semañada pushed Nieves Magtibay to a corner, threatened to kill her and demanded from her the shotgun of the deceased. The three also ransacked the couple’s wardrobe, after which they left with the shotgun valued at P250.00 and other merchandise and money of a total value of P900.
Defense contends that he shall be entitled to mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.
Issue: Whether or not he is entitled to mitigating circumstance of lack of instuction
Held: No, he is not entitled to mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. As to the circumstance of lack of instruction, the Solicitor General states that the test for the mitigating circumstance is not illiteracy alone, but rather lack of sufficient intelligence (People v. Ripas, Et. Al. * G. R. No. L-6246, promulgated May 28, 1954), and the record discloses that far from his claim that he suffers from lack of instruction, he possesses an intelligence worthy of a lawyer considering his ability, for one unschooled, to distinguish between implications and innuendos. At any rate, lack of instruction is not mitigating in cases of robbery
