10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Javier
*
G.R. No. 130654. July 28, 1999.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

EDUARDO BASIN JAVIER, accusedappellant.

Criminal Law; Parricide; Evidence; Mitigating Circumstance;

Illness; Requisites to be present inorder that the mitigating
circumstance of illness be appreciated.For the mitigating
circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law
requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must
diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender; and (2)
such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his
acts.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; No clear and convincing
evidence was shown that accusedappellant was suffering an
illness which diminished his exercise of willpower at the time of
the killing.Since accusedappellant has already admitted to the
killing, it is incumbent upon him to prove the claimed mitigating
circumstance of illness. In this case, however, aside from the
testimony of the accused that his mind went blank when he killed
his wife due to loss of sleep, no medical finding was presented
regarding his mental condition at the time of killing. This Court
can hardly rely on the bare allegations of accusedappellant, nor
on mere presumptions and conjectures. No clear and convincing
evidence was shown that accusedappellant was suffering an
illness which diminished his exercise of willpower at the time of
the killing.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Passion and Obfuscation;
Elements of.In order to be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the following elements
should concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) said act
which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during
which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity. The
foregoing elements were not proved to be present in instant case.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

In fact, during accusedappellants testimony, he even stated that

he was not jealous of his wife.

___________________

* EN BANC.

577

VOL. 311, JULY 28, 1999 577

People vs. Javier

Same; Same; Penalty; The crime of parricide, not being a

capital crime per se as it is not punishable by mandatory death
penalty but by the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death,
two indivisible penalties, the application of the lesser or the greater
penalty depends on the presence of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances.The crime of parricide, not being a capital crime
per se as it is not punishable by mandatory death penalty but by
the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, two indivisible
penalties, the application of the lesser or the greater penalty
depends on the presence of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances. In this case, the information for parricide against
accusedappellant did not allege any aggravating circumstance.
Nor did the evidence show that the prosecution was able to prove
any aggravating circumstance. Likewise, no mitigating
circumstance is appreciated by this Court in favor of the accused
appellant. Thus, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance for the accusedappellant, the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Agoo, La Union, Br. 32.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiffappellee.
Public Attorneys Office for accusedappellant.

ROMERO, J.:
1
Before us on automatic review is the Decision dated April
15, 1997 of 2 the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union,
Branch 32, in Criminal Case No. A3155, convicting
accusedappellant Eduardo Javier of the crime of parricide
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death and to
indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

P50,000.00 as moral damages and P21,730.00 as actual

expenses.
The Information filed before the trial court which
charged accusedappellant with the crime of parricide
reads as follows:

____________________

1 Rollo, pp. 1531.

2 Judge Leo M. Rapatalo, presiding.

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Javier

That on or about the 15th day of June 1996, in the Municipality

of Santo Tomas, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
with the intent to and being then armed with a bolo, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use
of personal violence, by hacking with the said weapon one
FLORENTINA JAVIER Y LACESTE, his legitimate spouse, and
as a result of which his said wife suffered fatal injuries which
directly caused her death immediately thereafter, to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of the victim.
Contrary to law.3

Upon arraignment, the accusedappellant pleaded not

guilty and trial ensued.
The prosecution evidence, consisting of the testimonies
of Consolacion Javier Panit and Alma Javier, daughters of
the victim and accusedappellant, and SPO1 Rotelio Pacho
are detailed as follows:
Accusedappellant Eduardo Javier and the victim
Florentina Laceste4 Javier were legally married on
December 18, 1954. In their fortyone years of marriage,
they begot ten children. Accusedappellant and Florentina
lived at Tubod, Sto. Tomas,
5
La Union with one of their
daughters, Alma Javier.
On June 15, 1996 between two oclock and three oclock
in the morning, Consolacion Javier Panit, who lives near
her parents house about ten to fifteen meters away, heard
her mother, Florentina shouting Arayatan dac ta
papatayen nac ni Tatangyo (Your father is going to kill
me). After she heard her mother scream for help,
Consolacion rushed out of her house and met her sister,
Alma who, weeping, told her that their parents were

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

quarrelling. Alma, at the time of the incident was living in

her parents house. Consolacion and Alma then proceeded
to their brother Manuels house, which is

__________________

3 Rollo, p. 6.
4 Records, p. 3.
5 TSN, February 12, 1997, pp. 56.

579

VOL. 311, JULY 28, 1999 579

People vs. Javier

located about seventy to eighty meters away from their

parents house. The three then proceeded to their parents
house. Manuel, who entered first, found the lifeless body of
his mother and his father, accusedappellant, wounded in
the abdomen. Manuel then ordered Consolacion to get a
tricycle to bring their father to the hospital. At this point,
Manuel informed her sisters that their mother was dead
and that their father confessed to him that he killed his
wife and thereafter allegedly stabbed himself. Florentina
was found
6
dead in their bedroom, drenched in her own
blood.
Accusedappellant was brought to the hospital by
Consolacions husband, Fernando,7 and her son, Jefferson,
while Manuel went out to get help.
SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, assigned as desk investigator at the
Sto. Tomas Police Station in La Union, testified in the
investigation he conducted with SPO4 Manuel Zarate and
SPO1 Agaton Laroza regarding the incident of June 15,
1996. He stated that he received a call for assistance from
the barangay captain of Tugod, Sto. Tomas because
accusedappellant allegedly killed his wife. The police
authorities then proceeded to accusedappellants house in
Brgy. Tugod, Sto. Tomas, where they saw Florentina lying
in the bedroom floor covered with blood. Upon interviewing
the victims children, Pacho testified that Manuel told him
that his father confessed to killing his wife. Manuel then
surrendered to him the bolo covered with blood which was
found in the bedroom. The bolo was allegedly 8
used by
accusedappellant in assaulting his wife. The medical
findings indicated that the victim suffered from multiple9
injuries and her neck was almost cut off from her body.
Accusedappellant Eduardo Javier, in his testimony,
admitted killing his wife in their bedroom with the use of a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

sharp bolo. He identified the bolo as the same one

presented by the

__________________

6 Ibid., pp. 69.

7 Id., p. 9.
8 TSN, February 19, 1997, pp. 27.
9 Records, p. 5.

580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Javier

prosecution as Exhibit A and which he used in wounding

himself. Accusedappellant told the court that he killed his
wife because he could not sleep for almost a month. He
claimed that when the killing took place, his mind 10 went
totally blank and he did not know what he was doing. He
claims that he was insane at the time of the incident.
The trial court rejected accusedappellants defense of
insanity and on April 15, 1997 rendered a decision finding
him guilty of parricide and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of death. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration, the

accused, Eduardo Javier y Basin is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of death; to pay the heirs of the victims the amount of
P50,000.00 as moral damages for the death of the victim and
P21,730.00 as actual expenses; and to pay the cost of the
proceedings.
11
SO ORDERED.

In this appeal, accusedappellant alleged that the trial

court erred in imposing the death penalty, considering the
presence of two mitigating circumstances of illness12
of the
offender and passion and obfuscation. While
accusedappellant does not question the decision of the trial
court in rejecting his defense of insanity, he argues that he
should be meted a lower penalty because at the time of the
incident, he was suffering from loss of sleep for a prolonged
period of time, which would have caused him to commit the
crime.
He further contends that his suspicion that his wife was
having an illicit relationship with another man, aggravated
by his illness, goaded him to commit the crime.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand,

argues that accusedappellant cannot claim the mitigating
circumstance of illness in the absence of a medical finding
to

____________________

10 TSN, March 11, 1997, pp. 35.

11 Rollo, pp. 1531.
12 Ibid., p. 56.

581

VOL. 311, JULY 28, 1999 581

People vs. Javier

support his claim. Accusedappellant cannot likewise be

entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation in the absence of sufficient evidence.
We find the appeal bereft of merit.
Accusedappellant, during trial, admitted killing his
wife, but interposed as defense the exempting circumstance
of insanity. However, the trial court rejected this defense of
insanity for failure of the defense to prove that accused
appellant was indeed insane at the time of the incident.
The defense never presented any medical record of the
accusedappellant, nor was a psychiatrist ever presented to
validate the defense of insanity. Equally important, the
defense, during trial, never alleged the aboveclaimed
mitigating circumstances of illness and passion and
obfuscation, thus weakening the case of accusedappellant.
In this appeal, accusedappellant alleged that prior to
the incident, he had been suffering from insomnia for
around a month, thus leading him to commit an act beyond
his control, the killing of his wife, Florentina. The defense
went on to cite medical literature on the effects
13
of total and
partial sleep loss to support his contentions.
For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender
to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the
following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise
of the willpower of the offender; and (2) such illness14should
not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
Since accusedappellant has already admitted to the
killing, it is incumbent upon him to prove the claimed
mitigating circumstance of illness. In this case, however,
aside from the testimony of the accused that his mind went
blank when he killed his wife due to loss of sleep, no
medical finding was presented regarding his mental
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

condition at the time of killing. This Court can hardly rely

on the bare allegations of accusedappellant, nor on mere
presumptions and conjectures.

___________________

13 Id., pp. 6465 (Appellants Brief).

14 Paragraph 9, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.

582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Javier

No clear and convincing evidence was shown that

accusedappellant was suffering an illness which
diminished his exercise of willpower at the time of the
killing.
On the other hand, it is clear that accusedappellant was
aware of the acts he committed. First, he remembered
killing his wife in their bedroom with the use of a bolo,
where he mangled her neck twice; he remembered trying to
commit suicide, by wounding himself with the same bolo he
used in killing his wife; and he remembered being brought
to the hospital. Since he remembered the vital
circumstances surrounding the ghastly incident, from the
time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the
hospital, it shows that he was in full control of his mental
faculties. This negates his claim that he was suffering from
an illness that diminished the exercise of his willpower.
On the basis of the foregoing, we cannot appreciate the
mitigating circumstance alleged by accusedappellant.
Neither can we appreciate the circumstance of passion
and obfuscation to mitigate his criminal liability.
In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, the following elements should
concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) said
act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed
from the commission of the crime by a considerable length
of time, during which15
the perpetrator might recover his
moral equanimity. The foregoing elements were not
proved to be present in instant case. In fact, during
accusedappellants testimony, he even stated that he was
not jealous of his wife.
As correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor
General:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

In the case of appellant, there is lack of proof of the cause which

produced the alleged passion and obfuscation. Appellant, in his
testimony, did not account how he killed his wife nor did he
explain the cause why he was prompted to kill his wife. Verily,
there

____________________

15 People of the Philippines v. Ruben Takbobo, 224 SCRA 134 (1993).

583

VOL. 311, JULY 28, 1999 583

People vs. Javier

exists no justifiable basis for applying to him this mitigating

circumstance of passion and obfuscation as the cause which
16
produced it has not been established.

All told, the allegations propounded by accusedappellant

that his suspicions regarding his wife, aggravated by his
illness made it possible for him to kill his own wife, is but a
mere afterthought to whittle down his criminal liability.
Additionally, it is a settled rule that factual findings of
the trial courts will generally not be disturbed by the
appellate court because it is in the best position to properly
evaluate testimonial evidence considering that it observes
the demeanor, conduct and attitude of witnesses during the
trial. In the case at bar, the trial court was able to observe
the behaviour of accusedappellant and it stated that his
recollection of the details surrounding the killing is so
impeccable that only a person in his right mind can make
it.
Thus, the trial court was correct in convicting
accusedappellant of the crime of parricide under Article
246 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659, Section 5) which provides that:

Any person who shall kill his father, mother or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or
descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall
be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

The crime of parricide, not being a capital crime per se as it

is not punishable by mandatory death penalty but by the
flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, two
indivisible penalties, the application of the lesser or the
greater penalty depends on17the presence of mitigating and
aggravating circumstances.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

___________________

16 Rollo, p. 105.
17 People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Reyes, 292 SCRA 663, (July
20, 1998).

584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Javier

In this case, the information for parricide against

accusedappellant did not allege any aggravating
circumstance. Nor did the evidence show that the
prosecution 18was able to prove any aggravating
circumstance. Likewise, no mitigating circumstance is
appreciated by this Court in favor of the accusedappellant.
Thus, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance for the accusedappellant, the lesser penalty
of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
As regards the monetary liability, the Court takes the
amount of P50,000.00 imposed by the trial court as one of
civil indemnity instead of as moral damages.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32, in Criminal Case No. A3155
is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
accusedappellant Eduardo Javier y Basin should suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
SO ORDERED.

Bellosilo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,

Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
GonzagaReyes and YnaresSantiago, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), On leave.

Appealed decision affirmed with modification.

Note.There is passional obfuscation when the crime is

committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion so
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a
legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.
(People vs. Valles, 267 SCRA 103 [1997])

o0o

__________________

18 Ibid.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
10/10/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 311

585

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157aca6ad58b45974a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10