PEOPLE v.
TORPIO y ESTRERA
G.R. No. 138984
JUNE 4, 2004
J. CALLEJO, SR.
SUBJECT MATTER:
Criminal Liability; Circumstances affecting criminal liability; Mitigating Circumstances; Immediate Vindication of a Grave
Offense
LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):
Article 13 of the RPC: Mitigating Circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances:
xxx
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the
felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees.
xxx
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
Appeal from the decision of the RTC of Ormoc City, finding Dennis Torpio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Parties
Appellant: Dennis Torpio y Estrera
SUMMARY:
Anthony and Dennis had a drinking spree. Dennis refused to drink the newly brought in gin liquor, even after the
persuasion of Anthony. Consequently, Anthony got angry and poured the gin into Dennis and then, mauled and boxed the
latter. Anthony tried to stab Dennis but failed since the latter crawled under the table. Dennis went home and took a knife.
He got hold of Anthony and stabbed him. Anthony died and Dennis later on surrendered to the police. Dennis was found
guilty by the trial court guilty of the crime of murder with three mitigating circumstances, one of which is that the accused
acted to vindicate immediately a grave offense committed by the victim. Supreme Court found that the aforementioned
mitigating circumstance is properly appreciated since the appellant was humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by the
deceased. And although the unlawful aggression had ceased when the appellant stabbed Anthony, it was nonetheless a
grave offense for which the appellant may be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance.
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● Dennis Torpio and his famliy were having dinner when the victim, Anthony Rapas, knocked at their door.
○ Anthony invited Dennis for a drinking spree
● After dinner, Dennis and Anthony went to a nearby store to start drinking
○ They were with another friend named Porboy Perez
● As they were not contented, they left the store and went to the seashore where in a cottage there were other
people drinking
○ The people in the cottage offered them drinks and the three drank
● The three decided to move to another cottage
○ Perez brought gin liquor for another round of drinking
● Dennis did not drink the gin, only the other two did.
● Anthony tried to persuade Dennis to drink, but the latter still refused
○ Anthony got angry so he bathed Dennis with gin, and then boxed and mauled him
○ Anthony also tried to stab Dennis but failed to hit the latter as Dennis crawled under the table
● Dennis got up and ran towards home
○ Dennis took a knife from home
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, PROF. OYALES
○ His family tried to stop him but they failed
● Dennis went back to the cottage, and when Anthony saw Dennis, the former ran
● Aside from being more familiar with the place, Dennis got a suggestion from another person abou the route and
exit that Anthony might take.
○ As a result, Dennis was able to see and block Anthony
● Dennis stabbed Anthony
● After being hit, Anthony tried to escape but he got entangled with a fishing net and then fell
○ Dennis got on top of Anthony and continued stabbing he latter.
● Dennis later on voluntary surrendered to the authorities
● Trial Court found Dennis guilty of murder qualified by treachery or evident premeditation and appreciating in his
favor the following mitigating circumstances: (a) sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party (the
deceased Anthony) preceded the act; (b) the accused acted to vindicate immediately a grave offense committed
by the victim; and, (c) voluntary surrender.
ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):
1. WON the trial court gravely erred in finding that treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of
the crime, thus, qualifying the same to murder. -- YES
2. WON the mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense was
properly appreciated. -- YES (ONLY ISSUE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC)
RATIO:
1. The two qualifying circumstances were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They cannot be presumed nor can
they be based on mere surmises or speculations. In case of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the
accused
○ Treachery
i. There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods or forms in the execution of the
crime which tends directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make
ii. In this case, the record is barren of evidence showing any method or means employed by the
appellant in order to ensure his safety from any retaliation that could be put up by the victim.
1. The appellant acted to avenge Anthony’s felonious acts of mauling and stabbing him.
○ Evident premeditation
i. Requisites: (a) the time when the offender [was] determined to commit the crime; (b) an act
manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of
time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
ii. Nothing in the records supports the trial court’s conclusion that evident premeditation attended
the commission of the crime in this case. It was not shown by the prosecution that, in killing
Anthony, the appellant had definitely resolved to commit the offense and had reflected on the
means to bring about the execution following an appreciable length of time.
○ Without any proof of any circumstance that would qualify it, the killing could not amount to murder. The
appellant should, thus, be held liable only for homicide for the death of Anthony.
2. The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense was properly
appreciated.
○ The appellant was humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by the deceased.
○ Although the unlawful aggression had ceased when the appellant stabbed Anthony, it was nonetheless a
grave offense for which the appellant may be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance.
○ NOTE FOR THE OTHER TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
i. Voluntary surrender
1. The trial court properly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as
it had been established that the appellant, after he killed Anthony, lost no time in
submitting himself to the authorities by going to Boy Estrera, a police officer.
ii. Sufficient provocation
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, PROF. OYALES
1. The Court said that the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be
considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These two
circumstances arose from one and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by
Anthony, so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 18, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch 35, in Criminal Case
No. 5217-0 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The appellant Dennis Torpio y Estrera is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its
medium period, as maximum. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of the said victim, the amounts of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (₱50,000) as civil indemnity, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000) as temperate damages and Fifty Thousand
Pesos (₱50,000) as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, PROF. OYALES
