People vs. Albuquerque Digest

PEOPLE  vs.  ALBUQUERQUE  

Criminal  Liability:  How  incurred  –  Wrongful  act  done  be  different  from  what  was  intended   Date:  December  19,  1933   Ponente:  Avanceña,  J.     ISSUES:   1. WON   the   appellant   acted   in   self-­‐defense   or   is   guilty  of  the  crime  of  homicide?     FACTS:   1. Gines   Albuquerque   y   Sanchez   is   a   widower   of   55  years  of  age  and  a  father  of  9  living  children.   He  has  been  suffering  from  partial   paralysis   for   some  time  and  as  a  result,  he  has  lost  control  of   movement  of  his  right  arm.   2. Appellant  lives  with  daughter  Maria  along  with   other   children   including   one   named   Pilar   who   became   acquainted   and   had   intimate   relations   with  the  deceased  Manuel  Osma   3. Appellant’s   daughter   Pilar,   hid   her   pregnancy   from  her  father;  the  latter  only  finding  out  about   said  pregnancy  after  she  had  given  birth  already.   4. Appellant   wrote   letters   to   the   deceased   which   were   hostile   and   threatening   at   times   and   other   times   entreating   the   deceased   to   legitimize  his  union  with  Pilar  by  marrying  her,   or  at  least  support  her  and  his  child.   5. Deceased   agreed   to   give   the   child   monthly   allowance   by   way   of   support   but   he   never   complied  with  promise   6. Appellant   presented   himself   at   the   office   of   deceased   one   day   and   on   that   occasion,   appellant   inflicted   a   wound   at   the   base   of   the   neck  of  the  deceased  causing  his  death.   7. Appellant   testified   that   he   proposed   to   said   deceased  to  marry  his  daughter  and  that  upon   hearing  the  latter  refuse  to  do  so,  the  appellant   whipped  out  his  penknife.  

8. Upon   seeing   attitude   of   appellant,   the  deceased   seized   appellant   by   the   neck   whereupon   the   appellant   stabbed   him   on   the   face   with   the   penknife.  BUT  due   to   his   lack   of   control  of  the   mov’t   of   his   arm,   the   weapon   landed   on   the   base  of  the  neck  of  the  deceased   9. Appellant   alleged   that   he   did   not   intend   to   cause   so   grave   an   injury   as   the   death   of   the   deceased     HOLDING:   The   court   held   appellant   did   not   act   in   legitimate   self-­‐ defense   inasmuch   as   he   provoked   and   commenced   the   aggression   by   drawing   his   penknife   but   that   the   (1)   mitigating  circumstances  of  lack  of  intention  to  cause  so   grave   an   injury   as   to   the   death   of   the   deceased,   (2)   appellant’s   act   of   voluntarily   surrendering   himself   to   the   authorities,   and   (3)   him   having   acted   under   the   influence   of   passion   and   obfuscation   should   accord   the   appellant   a   lowering   in   the   degree   of   penalty   imposed   upon  him.     RULING:   The   court   ruled   the   case   as   one   of   homicide   but   the   degree  of  penalization  lowered.      

Related  Provisions:     Article  13(3),  Revised  Penal  Code   Mitigating   Circumstances.   —   The   following  are  mitigating  circumstances:     3.  That   the   offender   had   no   intention   to   commit   so   grave   a   wrong   as   that   committed.     Article  49,  Revised  Penal  Code   Penalty   to   Be   Imposed   Upon   the   Principals   When   the   Crime   Committed   is   Different   from   that   Intended.   —   In   cases  in  which  the  felony  committed  is   different   from   that  which   the  offender   intended  to  commit,  the  following  rules   shall  be  observed:     1.   If   the   penalty   prescribed   for   the   felony   committed   be   higher   than   that   corresponding   to   the   offense   which   the   accused   intended   to   commit,   the   penalty   corresponding   to   the   latter   shall   be   imposed   in   its   maximum   period.     2.   If   the   penalty   prescribed   for   the   felony   committed   be   lower   than   that   corresponding   to   the   one   which   the   accused   intended   to   commit,   the   penalty  for  the  former  shall  be  imposed   in  its  maximum  period.     3.   The   rule   established   by   the   next   preceding   paragraph   shall   not   be   applicable  if  the  acts  committed  by  the   guilty   person   shall   also   constitute   an   attempt   or   frustration   of   another   crime,   if   the   law   prescribes   a   higher   penalty  for  either  of  the  latter  offenses,   in   which   case   the   penalty   provided   for   the   attempt   or   the   frustrated   crime   shall   be   imposed   in   its   maximum   period.