Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code: Mitigating Circumstances

Paragraph 5:

That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.

Requisites:

 That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
 That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of
time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense.

Difference

Provocation Vindication
As to person Made directly to the Grave offense may be
person committing the committed also against
felony. the offender’s relatives
mentioned by law.

As to necessity Cause need not be a Must have done grave

grave offense. offense.

As to time element Immediately preceded Grave offense may be

the act. That there be no proximate, which admits
interval of time. of an interval of time.
Lapse of time is allowed

 People vs. Parana, 64 Phil. 331, 337

FACTS:

One night, Primo Parana, the accused-appellant, had a loud and heated
discussion with one Lamay, causing Manuel Montinola, the deceased, to
admonish them. According to the testimony of Parana, Montinola slapped him
that night in front of many people and that when he talked to Montinola the
following morning (the day of the incident), the latter called him a “fool”.
Parana then stabbed and wounded Montinola who died 6 days later.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Art. 13, par. 5 is applicable in this case at bar.

RULING:

Yes. The offender was considered to have acted in the immediate

vindication of a grave offense committed against him a few hours ago by
Montinola, the deceased, when the latter slapped the accused-appellant in
front of many people. Although the slapping, which engenders perturbation of
the mind, did not happen immediately before the stabbing, still the court was
of the opinions that because of its gravity and the circumstances under which
it was inflicted, its influence lasted until the moment the crime was
committed.
Interval of time negating vindication

 People vs. Benito, No. L-32042, December 17, 1976

FACTS:

Benito was a former employee of the Civil Service Commission at its

main office and was assigned as Clerk 2 in the Administrative Division from
Nov. 1963 continuously up to Nov. 1965 when he was suspended for
"DISHONESTY". After two months, he was reinstated but was criminally
charged for QUALIFIED THEFT, MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS, ESTAFA
and FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS and administratively charged
for "DISHONESTY" culminating in his dismissal from the Civil Service on
February 1966.

October 21, 1965 the victim Moncayo, as an administrative officer,

reported to the Commissioner of Civil Service that Benito admitted having
malversed an amount between P4,000 and P5,000 from his sales of
examination fee stamps. At eleven o'clock in the morning of December 12,
1969 Moncayo, allegedly made upon seeing Benito in the compound of the
Civil Service Commission near the canteen: "Nagiistambay pala dito and
magnanakaw."; or, as Benito testified, Moncayo said: "Hindi ko alam na
itong Civil Service pala ay istambayan ng magnanakaw."

At about 5:25 p.m. of that same day, Dec. 12, 1969, the suspect shot
the victim eight (8) times on the head and different parts of the body at
closer range which consequently caused the latter's death on the spot
inside his car. Benito contends that there’s mitigating circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense since Moncayo insulted him when he
remarked that a thief was loitering in the premises of the Civil Service
Commission. Benito was later on acquitted of the crime that Moncayo
alleged he had committed.
ISSUE:

W/N the defamatory remark by the victim may give rise to the
mitigating circumstance of vindication of a wrong?

RULING:

NO. OSG said that the defamatory remark was not specifically
directed at Benito. SC said that even assuming that Moncayo's remark was
directed at Benito, Benito "had more than sufficient time to suppress his
emotion over said remark if he ever did resent it.” The six-hour interval
between the alleged grave offense committed by Moncayo against Benito
and the assassination was more than sufficient to enable Benito to recover
his serenity. But instead of using that time to regain his composure, he
evolved the plan of liquidating Moncayo after office hours. Benito literally
ambushed Moncayo just a few minutes after the victim had left the office.
He acted with treachery and evident premeditation in perpetrating the
cold-blooded murder. Also, SC said that the facts of the case strongly
suggest that what really impelled Benito to assassinate Moncayo was not
the latter's alleged defamatory remark but the refusal of Moncayo to
change his report so as to favor Benito. Benito did not act primarily to
vindicate an alleged grave offense to himself but mainly to chastise
Moncayo for having exposed the alleged anomalies or defraudation
committed by Benito and for obstinately refusing to change his report.
Because according also to Benito’s testimony, he saw Moncayo three hours
later after the remark or at two o'clock in the afternoon and inquired from
him about his case an

Is immediate vindication of a grave offense is the offense required to be a

crime?

Answer: No, but it may be any act or event which offends the accused
causing mental agony to him and moves him to vindicate himself of such
offense.

For instance, insulting an old man.