Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 544 views

    39 - People v. Gelaver

    Uploaded by

    erxha lado
    Eduardo Gelaver stabbed and killed his wife Victoria after catching her having sex with another man. He claimed passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance. The court ruled against this, finding inconsistencies in his story. To claim this defense, the death must be a proximate result of catching the spouse in the act, and the accused must not have had time to recover from the initial outrage. The court found Gelaver did not meet these requirements, as his wife had left him some time ago. It upheld his conviction for parricide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    39 - People v. Gelaver

    Uploaded by

    erxha lado
    544 views2 pages
    Eduardo Gelaver stabbed and killed his wife Victoria after catching her having sex with another man. He claimed passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance. The court ruled against this, finding inconsistencies in his story. To claim this defense, the death must be a proximate result of catching the spouse in the act, and the accused must not have had time to recover from the initial outrage. The court found Gelaver did not meet these requirements, as his wife had left him some time ago. It upheld his conviction for parricide.

    Original Title

    39 _ People v. Gelaver

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eduardo Gelaver stabbed and killed his wife Victoria after catching her having sex with another man. He claimed passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance. The court ruled against this, finding inconsistencies in his story. To claim this defense, the death must be a proximate result of catching the spouse in the act, and the accused must not have had time to recover from the initial outrage. The court found Gelaver did not meet these requirements, as his wife had left him some time ago. It upheld his conviction for parricide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    544 views2 pages

    39 - People v. Gelaver

    Uploaded by

    erxha lado
    Eduardo Gelaver stabbed and killed his wife Victoria after catching her having sex with another man. He claimed passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance. The court ruled against this, finding inconsistencies in his story. To claim this defense, the death must be a proximate result of catching the spouse in the act, and the accused must not have had time to recover from the initial outrage. The court found Gelaver did not meet these requirements, as his wife had left him some time ago. It upheld his conviction for parricide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

    Case No. 47: People v. Gelaver


    G.R. No. 95357. June 9, 1993.

    TOPIC: Mitigating Circumstances – Passion or obfuscation


    Albon, A.

    FACTS:
    ! Eduardo Gelaver, being armed with a knife, assaulted and stabbed his lawfully wedded
    wife, Victoria Gelaver Y Pacinabao.

    RTC RULING:
    The RTC of Surallah, South Cotabato found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide
    and sentencing him to “suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of his
    wife P30,000.”

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not Gelaver is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or
    obfuscation

    PLAINTIFF (People of the Philippines): ACCUSED (Eduardo Gelaver):


    The prosecution presented Randy Mamon: He - Gelaver admitted killing his wife but
    saw the appellant and a woman having a claimed that he did so after catching her
    heated argument Appellant held the neck of having carnal act with her paramour.
    the victim, dragged her with a knife on his right - Appellant testified that he was married to
    hand, stabbed the latter three times on the Victoria Pacinabao. They lived together in
    breast. their conjugal home until she abandoned
    - Appellant’s claim that his daughter, her family to live with her paramour.
    Sheryl, had confided ito him the place - Her daughter informed her that his wife,
    where her mother was staying (with her Victoria, and her paramour were living at a
    paramour) was belied by Sheryl house in front of a Church. Appellant
    herself. She stated, in her testimony, repaired to the place. He saw his wife
    that she did not know the house where having sexual intercourse
    the crime was committed

    SC RULING:
    Appellant’s contention is bereft of merit. The three requisites in order for Article 247 of the
    RPC to be operative must be established by the defense.
    - Implicit in this exceptional circumstance is that the death must be the proximate result of
    outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity.
    His testimony is tainted with inconsistencies which leads the Court to believe otherwise.
    The natural thing for a person to do was to report to the police. Appellant’s contention
    that he thought that only the killing should be blottered, reserving the details to the
    defense lawyer, sounded like a spoonfed afterthought.
    - The trial court noted several contradictions in the appellant’s testimony.
    - The trial court erred in finding the presence of the mitigating circumstance of passion
    of obfuscation “as a result of his wife’s leaving their home and their children.” The
    act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the
    CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

    crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have
    recovered his equanimity

    ADDITIONAL NOTES:
    Before Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code can be operative, the following requisites must
    be compresent:

    “1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
    under 18 years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
    another person.;

    2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
    physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter.;

    3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of His wife or daughter, or that he or
    she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.”

    The trial court erred in finding the presence of the mitigating circumstance of passion or
    obfuscation “as a result of his (appellant’s) wife leaving their home and their children.” (Rollo,
    p. 28) Before this circumstance may be taken into consideration, it is necessary to establish
    the existence of an unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition of mind. The act
    producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a
    considerable length of time, during which the accused might have recovered his equanimity.

    You might also like