Mayor As Minimum, To Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional As

People of the Philippines vs Oandasan
G.R. No. L-29532
Facts:
Oandasan testified that he saw the deceased Duldulao chasing his son. Not contented with that
and not being able to catch the latter, Duldulao threw his wooden club at the son of the accused, but
the son was not hit. Oandasan approached Duldulao and asked him why he was chasing the son and
why he threw the club. Upon being asked, Duldulao clubbed Oandasan, hitting him on the left shoulder.
Oandasan stepped backward and remembering that he had a sharp-pointed knife, he drew it. Again the
deceased struck him on the head with the club, so he stabbed Duldulao on the front. The deceased
sustained two wounds, one at the epigastric region and the other on the right hand. Oandasan was
charged with homicide. At the preliminary investigation in Municipal Court, accused was arraigned and
pleaded “not guilty”. The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance and upon arraignment, he
pleaded “guilty”. Before sentence, he presented evidence to prove the mitigating circumstances of
incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender, aside from the plea of guilty. He was sentenced for
crime of homicide defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code to an
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum, with the accessories of the law.
Issues:
Whether or not plea of guilty should be appreciated in the case
Whether or not incomplete self-defense should be appreciated in the case
Ruling:
The municipal court before which the accused pleaded not guilty was only conducting a
preliminary investigation. It had no jurisdiction over the crime of homicide; it could not have rendered
judgment on the plea. The proper forum where a plea in mitigation may be presented is the court which
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. By statute Article 13(7), a circumstance which mitigates
penal liability is that the accused "had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. Plea of guilt should be counted in his favor.
They say that those facts also clearly demonstrate an act of unlawful aggression by the deceased
as well as lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. There two circumstances, they
submit, carve out a good case of incomplete self-defense. The only element absent to exempt the
accused totally from criminal liability under Article 11(1) is "reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel". The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense is
here present.
The standard set down in the cases just discussed gives us the proper course to pursue: A two-
degree reduction of penalty — one degree, by Article 69, and another degree, by Article 64(5). The
crime of homicide is penalized by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
Penalty is modified. He is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto
mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as
maximum, with the accessories of the law.
PEOPLE VS CACHOLA
G.R. NO. 148712-15, JANUARY 21, 2004
FACTS:
On December 28, 1999, two armed men suddenly entered Barnachea residence. The two
ordered a 12-year old boy, Jessie E. Barnachea, to drop the floor by hitting him in the back with the butt
of a long gun. They hurriedly proceeded to the living room and shot Jessie’s uncle, Victorino Lolarga, and
continued shooting in the kitchen hitting his mother Carmelita Barnachea, his brother Felix Barnachea,
Jr., and his cousin Rubenson Abance. His eldest brother, Robert E. Barnachea, who then was in his
uncle’s house, noticed a stainless jeep, with blue rim and marking "fruits and vegetables dealer," and
with the description of the "El Shaddai" parked in front of the fence of their house. Also, the jeep did not
go unnoticed by the neighbors, Russel Tamba and Francisco Andrada.
The incident was immediately reported to the police and at around 7:45 p.m., the jeep was
intercepted at a checkpoint set up in the highway by the police force in Aringay, La Union. On board
were the eight appellants. No firearms were found in the vehicle. The jeep and the eight appellants were
thereafter brought to the Aringay police station and then turned over to the Bauang police. Jessie was
able to identify two of the eight appellants by the name of Cachola and Amay as the two assailants who
entered the house. The next day a paraffin test was conducted on the appellants.
The Death Certificates attest to the gruesome and merciless killings. Carmelita sustained one
gunshot wound on her head and three on her body; Felix, Jr., two gunshot wounds on his head and on
his body, and stab wounds on his chest and arms; Victorino, two gunshot wounds on his head, three on
his body, and with his penis excised; Rubenson, one gunshot wound on his head and a stab wound that
lacerated his liver. RTC convicted all the eight appellants but the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
recommended the affirmance of the conviction for murder of appellants Cachola and Amay, and the
acquittal of the other appellants for failure of the prosecution to establish their identity and
participation beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not excising of penis amounts to ignominy that can aggravate the offense charged?
Ruling:
No. For ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that the offense be committed in a manner that tends
to make its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the victim’s moral suffering. Where the victim was
already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken against the
accused.
In this case, the information states that Victorino’s sexual organ was severed after he was shot
and there is no allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. We cannot,
therefore, consider ignominy as an aggravating circumstance. SC sustained the conviction of Cachola
and Amay but the rest of the six appellants were acquitted for the crime charged for insufficiency of
evidence.

Mayor As Minimum, To Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional As

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mayor As Minimum, To Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional As

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mayor As Minimum, To Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional As

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of the Philippines vs Oandasan

G.R. No. L-29532

You might also like