Group 2

What is schizophrenia? What is the basis for exempting a person who is insane from
criminal responsibility?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. FERNANDO MADARANG y MAGNO
accused-appellant
G.R. No. 132319; May 12, 2000
FACTS: Ferdinand Madarang y Magno was charged with parricide for the killing of his wife Lilia
Madarang. He claims that he was suffering from a mental illness at the time he committed the
felony, and as such, should not be held liable. They have 7 children and she was pregnant with
her eighth child. He worked abroad as a seaman for 16 years. Afterwards, he set up a hardware
store here in the Philippines. The business failed and he lost his entire fortune due to
cockfighting. They were forced to stay in the house of Avelina Mirador, Lilias mother because he
could no longer support his family. Sept 3, 1993 he and Lilia had a squabble. He was jealous of
another man and he was accusing her of infidelity. In the heat of the fight and in the presence of
their children he stabbed her resulting in her untimely death. Avelina testified that she saw the
accused emerge from the house holding a bolo. She ran for safety during the period he stayed in
her house, she did not notice anything peculiar in his behavior that would suggest he was
suffering from any mental illness. Dr. Wilson Tibayan declared that Madarang was committed to
the National Center or Medical Helath (NCMH) upon the order of the court to determine the
fitness of the accused to stand trial. The NCMH conducted three medical and psychiatric
evaluations of the accused during his stay there. He was diagnosed to be suffering from
schizophrenia. He also testified that it was highly possible that the accused was suffering from
schizophrenia prior to his commission of the crime. According to the accused, he contends that
at the time he stabbed his wife he was completely deprived of intelligence, making his criminal
act involuntary. He had no recollection of the stabbing. Hence, he was completely unaware of his
acts and must have committed the acts with the least discernment. His behavior at the time of
the stabbing proved he was then afflicted with schizophrenia. He did not seem to recognize
anybody and this is peculiar to persons who are insane because a sane person who just
committed a crime would have appeared remorseful and repentant after realizing that what he
did was wrong.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused invoking insanity can claim exemption from liability for the
crime he committed
RULING: No, Decision of the trial court convicting the appellant of the crime of parricide is
affirmed.
None of the witnesses presented by the accused declared that he exhibited any of the many
symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous with the stabbing
incident. Although Dr. Tibayan opined that it was highly probable that the accused was already
insane before the commission of the crime, he also said that schizophrenics have lucid intervals
during which they are capable of distinguishing right from wrong. His claim that he had no
recollection of the stabbing incident amounts only to a mere general denial that can be made
with facility.
The fact that Avelina and her nephew were frightened at the sight of him holding a bolo does not,
in any way, prove that he was insane at that time. His non-repentant attitude after he stabbed
his wife cannot be an indication of his insanity because even criminals of sound mental condition

can be non-remorseful. The fact that he and his wife never quarreled did not prove his insanity.It
cannot be said that jealousy is not a sufficient reason to kill a pregnant spouse.
The accused attributes his loss of insanity on his bad fortune. This is purely speculative and
unsupported by record.
Avelina testified that during his stay in her house, she did not notice any abnormal or irregular
behavior on the part of the accused that could have suggested that he was insane. Since he had
already admitted to committing the crime but pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity, he is
tried on the issue of insanity alone and if he is found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is
rendered without any trial on the issue of guilt.

Group 2
What is insanity that would be exempting? When can insanity be invoked to exempt a
person from criminal responsibility?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ROSALINO DUNGO accusedappellant
G.R. No. 89420; July 31, 1991
FACTS: The accused went to Mrs. Siguas office at the Department of Agrarian Reform, Apalit,
Pampanga. After a brief talk, the accused drew a knife from the envelope he was carrying and
stabbed Mrs. Sigua several times. After which he departed from the office with blood stained
clothes, carrying a bloodied bladed weapon. The autopsy report revealed that the victim
sustained 14 wounds, 5 of which were fatal. Rodolfo Sigua, husband of the deceased, testified
that the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him why his wife was requiring so many
documents from him. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR. The accused, in
defense of himself tried to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense
Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987, Rosalinos wife noticed that he appears to be in deep thought
always, maltreating their children when he was not used to it before. There were also times that
her husband would inform her that his feet and head were on fire when in truth they were not.
On that fateful day Rosalino complained of stomachache but they didnt bother to buy medicine
as the pain went away immediately. Thereafter, he went back to the store. But when Andrea
followed him to the store, he was no longer there. Worried, she looked for him. On her way home,
she heard people saying that a stabbing occurred. She saw her husband in her parents-in-laws
house with people milling around. She asked her husband why he did the act, to which Rosalino
answered, Thats the only cure for my ailment. I have cancer of the heart. If I dont kill the
deceased in a number of days, I would die. That same day, the accused went to Manila. Dr.
Santiago and Dr. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health testified that the accused was
confined in the mental hospital, as per order of the trial court. Based on the reports of their staff,
they concluded that Rosalino was psychotic or insane long before, during and after the
commission of the alleged crime and classified his insanity as an organic mental disorder
secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. But Dr. Balatbat who treated the accused for
ailments secondary to stroke, and Dr. Lim who testified that the accused suffered dorm occlusive
disease, concluded that Rosalino was somehow rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment
in their clinic.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was insane during the commission of the crime charged.

RULING: No. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability, it is necessary that there be a
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that he acts w/o the least
discernment and that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. Under
Philippine jurisdiction, theres no definite test or criterion for insanity. However, the definition of
insanity under Sec 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code can be applied. In essence, it states
that insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties, which is
manifested in language or conduct. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the
nature and consequence of his act.
Evidence of insanity must refer to the mental condition at the very time of doing the act. It is also
permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition for a reasonable period before and after
the time of the act in question. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts it is
not usual for an insane person to confront a specified person who may have wronged him. But in
the case at hand, the accused was able to Mrs. Sigua. From this, it can be inferred that the
accused was aware of his acts. The fact that the accused was carrying an envelope where he hid
the fatal weapon, that he ran away from the scene of the incident after he stabbed the victim
several times, that he fled to Manila to evade arrest, indicate that he was conscious and knew
the consequences of his acts in stabbing the victim.

Group 2
Who has the burden of proof to prove that offender is entitled to exempting
circumstance of minority? In conjunction with RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act Sec. 4(c) ; Sec. 6 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the
Law Sec. 1 (Applicability of Rule); Sec. 4 (Definitions)
NIEL F. LLAVE petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES respondent G.R. No. 166040;
April 26, 2006
FACTS: The accused who was only 12 years old and a freshman high school student was charged
of rape committed against a 7 year old girl. The petitioner, with methodical fashion, dragged the
resisting victim behind the pile of hollow blocks near a vacant house to insure that passersby
would not be able to discover his dastardly acts. When he was discovered by a curious neighbor
who shouted at him, the petitioner hastily fled from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the
prodding of his father and her mother, he hid in his grandmothers house to avoid being arrested
by policemen and remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took him into custody. The
accused had been an outstanding grade school student and even received awards. While in
Grade I, he was the best in his class in his academic subjects. He represented his class in a quiz
bee contest and At the age of 12, he already finished a computer course.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime
acted with discernment?
RULING: Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over nine
years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with
discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence of
intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential element of a felony either by
dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to
distinguish a licit from an illicit act. On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to

understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that
the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment
not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The
surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it
was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minors
cunning and shrewdness. In the instant case, petitioners actuations during and after the rape
incident, as well as his behavior during the trial showed that he acted with discernment.
The fact that petitioner was a recipient of several academic awards and was an honor student
further reinforces the finding that he was possessed of intelligence well beyond his years and
thus was able to distinguish, better than other minors of his age could, which conduct is right
and which is morally reprehensible. Hence, although appellant was still a minor of twelve years
of age, he possessed intelligence far beyond his age. It cannot then be denied that he had the
mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Group 2
What are the elements of accident? Distinguish self-defense from accident?
ROWENO POMOY, petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent G.R. No.
150647; September 29, 2004
FACTS: Balboa was a suspect in robbery case who has apprehended by the police. Petitioner a
police sergeant went to the jail where Balboa was detained and directed to come for
interrogation. When petitioner and Balboa reached the main building 2 gunshots were heard.
Petitioner alleged that he has a 45 caliber pistol placed in his holster attached to his belt on his
waist. During the grappling, he used his left hand to prevent Balboa from holding his gun, while
the victim used his right hand in trying to reach the gun. After the gun fired Balboa fell.
ISSUE: Whether or not the shooting of Balboa was the result of an accident
RULING: Yes. In this case the elements of accident are as follows:
1.) The accused was at the time performing a lawful act
2.) With due care
3.) The resulting injury was caused by mere accident
4.) On the part of the accused, there was no fault or intent to cause the injury

From the facts, it is clear that all elements were present. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was
duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained
person in his custody. He exercised all the necessary precautions to prevent his service weapon
from causing accidental harm to others. As he so assiduously maintained, he had kept his service
gun locked when he left his house; he kept it inside its holster at all times, especially within the
premises of his working area. After all, a minute earlier he had been calmly escorting a person
from the detention cell to the investigating room and, in the next breath, he was looking at his
companions bloodied body. His reaction was to be expected of one in a state of shock at events
that had transpired so swiftly and ended so regrettably. At no instance during his testimony did
the accused admit to any intent to cause injury to the deceased, much less kill him. Furthermore,
Nicostrato Estepar the guard in charge of the detention of Balboa, did not testify to any behavior
on the part of petitioner that would indicate the intent to harm the victim while being fetched
from the detention cell.
Wherefore the death of the victim was the result of an accidental firing of the service gun of
petitioner an exempting circumstance as defined in Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code is
applied.

Group 2
What is the basis of the exempting circumstance of irresistible force or uncontrollable
fear? Where these present in this case?
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ERNESTO RAMOS y ANTONIO,
ELADIO CALUYA y BINUYA, SIXTO GABORNE y LLUADER and EDUARDO SUBLECHERO y
GABUAT, defendants-appellants
G.R. No. L-32265; May 16, 1983
FACTS: Two housemaids were at the kitchen of Dr. Gaza's (deceased) house when a man came
from behind and tied a handkerchief and twisted shirt to both of them, their hands and feet were
also tied by a rope. 4 other appellants managed to enter the house. The deceased went to the
kitchen to get some water and returned to the sala. Her wife heard a groan, thinking that the
deceased was in a nightmare, he asked him and she got a glass of water but she met the other
defendants. She was also tied along with the housemaids.
Defendants demanded money,
they were able to get 200 pesos. On the trial 3 defendants accused Boy Andy that they were just
compelled to commit the crime since they were threatened to be killed. Thus, they contended
the existence of exempting circumstance of irresistible force and uncontrollable fear.

ISSUE: Whether or not the 3 accused are entitled of the said exempting circumstance
RULING: No. Basis of the two exempting circumstance is the complete absence of freedom. They
failed to show that they resisted the threats of Boy and that in spite of their resistance they were
still forced to act in accordance with his wishes. Merely Their fear is merely speculative and there
was complete absence of real or reasonable fear for one's life. They would have easily
overpowered Boy who was alone.

Group 2
Given the circumstances in this case, do you agree with the ruling of the Supreme
Court?
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee vs. JOSEFINA BANDIAN,
defendant-appellant
G.R. No. 45186; September 30, 1936
FACTS: One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket
apparently to respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket
with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing
signs of not being able to support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her to her house and
placed her on the bed. He called on Adriano Comcom to help them Comcom saw he body of a
newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments
before. She claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in
her own house and three her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave credit to this
opinion.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bandian is guilty of infanticide?

RULING: No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed
willfully or consciously, or at least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or
omission. The evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her childs death in one way
or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had
no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with a former lover, which
was not unknown to her second lover, Kirol, took place three years before the incident; her
married life with Kirolshe considers him her husband as he considers him his wifebegan a
year ago; as he so testified at the trial, he knew of the pregnancy and that it was his and that
theyve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the child. The appellant, thus, had no cause to be
ashamed of her pregnancy to Kirol.
Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was
unable, due to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful or insuperable to
constitute the seventh exempting circumstance, to take hernchild from the thicket where she had
given it birth, so as not to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing its life. If by
going into the thicket to pee, she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in that same
place and later abandoning it, not because of imprudence or any other reason than that she was
overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not be blamed because it all
happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law exempts from liability
any person who so acts and behaves under such circumstances (Art. 12(4), RPC). Thus, having
the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances in her favor, she is acquitted of the crime that
she had been accused of.

Group 2
What is a buy-bust operation? What happened in this case in order to be a valid buybust operation?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ROLANDO ASPIRAS, accusedappellant
G.R. No. 138382-84; February 12, 2002
FACTS: On December 26, 1994, Sr. Inspector Valdez of Paraaque Philippine National Police Drug
Enforcement Unit received a telephone call, informing him that a certain alias Rolly, later
identified as Rolando Aspiras, herein accused-appellant, of Tambo Paraaque was peddling
prohibited drugs. Upon such information, Sr. Insp. Valdez constituted PO3 Jose Soreta, Police

Aides (P/A) Abelardo Soto and Jerry Sabino to conduct a surveillance operation on Rolando
Aspiras. On the same day, surveillance was conducted at J. Puyat Compound where the house of
the suspected peddler was located. Afterwards, the surveillance team went back to the police
station and planned a buy-bust operation. On December 27, 1994, at around 7 in the evening,
P/A Jerry Sabino acted as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Soreta, P/A Soto and Crisanto Cruz
positioned themselves approximately ten meters away from Aspiras house. When Sabino called
for Aspiras, Rodolfo Aha San Lorenzo alias Bukol went out and inquired what Sabino wanted.
Sabino related to San Lorenzo that he wanted to score or buy marijuana for P50.00 pesos.
Sabino then gave to San Lorenzo the marked 5 pieces of ten peso bills worth P50.00. Upon
receipt of such amount, San Lorenzo entered Aspiras house. Soon after, Aspiras came out and
asked Sabino if he was the one who wanted to score. When Sabino confirmed, Aspiras handed
five (5) pieces of aluminum foils. Upon verifying its contents as marijuana, Sabino signaled his
companions to make the arrest. When Aspiras saw the rest of Sabinos companions, he rushed
inside his house and the police team sought after him. Thereat, the marked money was
recovered from Aspiras while PO3 Soreta seized two bricks of marijuana flower tops wrapped in
plastic bag under a table. Afterwards, Aspiras and San Lorenzo were brought to the
headquarters and the marijuana flower tops were sent to the NBI for examination. Charges were
then filed against Aspiras and San Lorenzo for violation of Sections 4 and 8 of R.A. 6425, as
amended.
ISSUE: Whether or not the buy-bust operation is valid?
RULING: In this appeal, accused-appellant Aspiras questions the existence of the buy-bust
operation, imputes ill-motive on the police officers and asserts that the evidence against him is
planted.Is the evidence presented before the trial court sufficient to warrant accused-appellants
conviction?
The evidence shows that upon an information of alleged involvement of accused-appellant in the
sale of prohibited drugs, the PNP-Drug Enforcement Unit surveyed the area and identified
accused-appellants residence. After the surveillance, a buy-bust operation was planned and the
serial numbers of five (5) pieces of P10.00 bills were written in the office logbook. Then, the day
after the surveillance, the buy-bust operation was conducted.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to catch a malefactor
in flagrante delicto. It has been defined as the employment of such ways and means for the
purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. The idea to commit the crime originates from the
accused; nobody induces or prods him into committing the offense.
The testimonies of P/A Sabino and PO3 Soreta had sufficiently established how the crime was
committed. The fact that accused-appellant handed to P/A Sabino the five marijuana aluminum
foils amounting to P50.00 pesos constitute the illegal sale of marijuana. There is no fixed
procedure for conducting buy-bust operation and no rule of law requires the simultaneous
exchange of the marked money and the prohibited or regulated drug between the poseur-buyer
and the pusher or seller. The well-entrenched principle is that the crime of illegal sale is
committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated, whether payment precedes or
follows delivery of the drug sold.
Group 2

When is the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong

not applicable
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ANTONIO YU defendantappellant
G.R. No. L-13780; January 28, 1961
FACTS: The accused Antonio Yu alias Sostenes Yongco by means of violence and intimidation
have carnal knowledge to Delia Abule, a girl of 6 years of age against her with that on the
occasion of the said crime of rape. The accused in order to silence the said Delia who was then
shouting with abuse of superior strength and with intent to kill, attack, assault and strangle the
said Delia Abule, and as result thereof, the latter died.
The accused testify that his only intention was to abuse her, but when she tried to shout, he
covered her mouth and choked her and later found out that because of that she died.
ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstances is applicable to the crime committed by the
accused?
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled: It is easy enough for the accused to say that he had no
intention to do great harm. But he knew the girl was very tender in age (6 years old), weak in
body, helpless and defenseless. He did not only cover her mouth to silence her, but choked her.
He knew or ought to have known the natural and inevitable result of the act of strangulation,
committed by men of superior strength, especially on an occasion when she was resisting the
onslaught upon her honor. The brute force employed by the appellant, completely contradicts the
claim that he had no intention to kill the victim.

Group 2
When insult on age considered a vindication of a grave offense
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee vs. CLEMENTE AMPAR, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-12883; November 26, 1917
FACTS: A fiesta was in progress in the barrio of Magbaboy, municipality of San Carlos, Province
of Occidental Negros. Roast pig was being served. The accused Clemente Ampar, a man of three
score and ten, proceeded to the kitchen and asked Modesto Patobo for some of the delicacy.
Patobos answer was; There is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you. The effect
of this on the accused as explained by him in his confession was, Why was he doing like that, I
am not a child. With this as the provocation, a little later while the said Modesto Patobo was
squatting down, the accused came up behind him and struck him on the head with an ax,
causing death the following day.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused Clemente Ampar is entitled to the benefit of a mitigating
circumstances?
RULING: While it may be mere trifle to an average person, it is evidently was a serious matter to
the old man, to be made the butt of joke in the presence of so many guest. The accused was
given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense.

Group 2
When passion and obfuscation can be appreciated
People v.Bates (G.R. No. 139907)
FACTS: Edgar Fuentes, Simon Fuentes and Jose Boholst left Barangay Esperanza, Ormoc City to
deliver copra to a certain Fely Rodado at Barangay Green Valley, Ormoc City. After delivering
copra around 5:00 in the afternoon, the three men headed back to Barangay Esperanza. While
they were along a trail leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from
the thick banana plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose Boholst who was
then walking ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed Carlitos right hand and elbow and tried to
wrest possession of the firearm. While the two were grappling for possession, the gun fired,
hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the ground. At that instant, Marcelo Bates and his son
Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and nephew of Carlito, respectively, emerged from the banana
plantation each brandishing a bolo. They immediately attacked Jose hacking him several times.
Jose fell to the ground and rolled but Marcelo and his son kept on hacking him. Marcelo, then,
turned to Simon and Edgar and shouted huwes de kutsilyo. Upon hearing the same, Simon and
Edgar ran. Upholding the prosecution evidence, the trial court rendered its Judgment, finding
Marcelo Bates guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marcelo could validly invoke the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation?
RULING: Passion and obfuscation may not be properly appreciated in favor of appellant. To be
considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment. In the
present case clearly, Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing is brother, Carlito, shot by Jose.
However, a distinction must be made between the first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the
second time that the former hacked the latter. When Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the
latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrained from doing anything else after that, he could
have validly invoked the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But when, upon
seeing his brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was already prostrate on
the ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case of someone acting out of
anger in the spirit of revenge.

Group 2
When can plea of guilt to a lesser offense be appreciated?
People v. Dawaton (G.R. No. 146247)
FACTS: Edgar Dawaton was found guilty by the trial court of murder qualified by treachery and
was sentenced to death. On 20 September 1998, Leonidas Lavares and several companions,
including Dawaton were drinking in the house of the accuseds uncle. Already drunk, Leonidas
Lavares decided to sleep whilethe accused and his companions continued drinking. Dawaton
awakened Lavares by stabbing him at the base of the neck. Dawaton continued stabbing Lavares
until the victim died. Dawaton then ran away to the house of his other relative, where he was
later on arrested by the police.
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty of death imposed by the trial court upon the accused was
correct?
RULING: No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in not considering the alternative
circumstance of intoxication in favor of the accused. Under Art.15 of T he Revised Penal Code,
intoxication of the offender shall be considered as a mitigating circumstance when the offender
commits a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan
to commit said felony. Otherwise, when habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. The allegation that the accused was drunk when he committed the
crime was corroborated by the prosecution witnesses. The accused and his drinking companions
had consumed four (4) bottles of gin at the house of Esmeraldo Cortez, each one drinking at
least a bottle. It was also attested that while the four (4) shared another bottle of gin at the
house of Amado Dawaton, it was the accused who drank most of its contents. The Court further
stated that Under Art. 63, par. 3, of T he Revised Penal Code, in all cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two (2) indivisible penalties, such as in this case, when the
commission of the act is attended by a mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since no aggravating circumstance attended
the killing but there existed the mitigating circumstance of intoxication, the accused should be
sentenced only to the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.