Mitigating; Non-Intoxication (2000)
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year’s celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona’s place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter’s refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy’s fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the latter’s yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy’s five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain.
b) If you were Jonas’ and Jaja’s lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of your clients? Explain.
c) If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)….
b) If I were Jonas’ and Jaja’s lawyer, I will use the following defenses:
a. That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they merely intended to frighten Jepoy;
b. That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will power or capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating circumstance (People us. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art. 15, RPC.).
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)
An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded “not guilty” during the preliminary investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court the Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during preliminary investigation only and before a court not competent to render judgment.
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Requisites (1999)
In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
a. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged;
b. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render judgment; and
c. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Voluntary Surrender (1997)
After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty.
Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be considered in favor of the accused?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After two years, the police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter could have continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should be considered mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or repentance on the part of said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved the Government expenses, efforts, and time.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too long a time to consider the surrender as spontaneous (Peopleus.Ablao,183SCRA658). For sure the government had already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in looking for the accused.
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the prosecution had already started with the presentation of its evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal Code).
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender (1996)
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of Police of the town, accompanied by several policemen, went to Hilario’s house, Hilario, upon seeing the approaching policemen, came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily went with them to the Police Station to be investigated in connection with the killing. When eventually charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal, faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but came down and met the police officers and went with them is considered “Voluntary surrender,” The voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen who had gone to his hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Dayrit, cited in Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 299)
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender; Elements (1999)
When is surrender by an accused considered voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities.
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
a. spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for convenience nor conditional;
b. made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the offender’s whereabouts; and
c. made to a person in authority or the latter’s agents.
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CRIMINAL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.
