official gazette 2011

8/3/2019 Official Gazette 2011

1/10

7360 OFFICIAL GAZETTE VOL. 57, No. 41[No. 22647-R]

Submitted Octobel' 17, 1960. Decided January 30, 1961THE PEOPLE OF TH E PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee,vs. JOSE LAURON, accused and appellant.

SUMMARYAppeal from the Court of First Instance of Capiz; ROBERTO ZUR-

BANO, Judge; Affirmed with modification. Appellant was found guiltyof homicide an d sentenced to an indeterminate penaity of 6 yearsand 1 day of prisi6n mayor to 12 years an d 1 day of reclu8i6ntemporal, to indemnify th e heirs of Crisanto Artuz in th e sum off06,QOO.OO and to pay th e costs.

"JOSE Y. TORRES, of Roxas City, filed a brief for the appellant.Points of counsel:I.-Credible evidence supports l le contention of th e defense, thatth e decased wa s killed in th e !tct of adultery with appellant'swife.H.-Appellant. is not guilty of homicide because Article 247of the Hevised Penal Code applies.Assistant Solicitor General ESMERALD UMALI an d Solicitor FEflE-

RH ..O V. SIAN filed a brief fo r appellee.Points of counsel:I.-Evidence fo r appellant consisting of his uncorroborated testi

mony is improbable an d inconsistent.II .-Article 247 of th e Revised Penal Code does not apply andappellant is guilty of homicide.

Heard before MAKALINTAL, J., Chairman, CASTRO and CAPISTRANO,JJ., Members, composing the Fourth Division of th e Court.

OPINION OF TH E COURT1. CRIMINAL LAW; DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER

EXCEPTIONAL CmCUl!;lSTANCES; ARTICLE 247, REVISED PENALCODE; HrSTORY.-Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code wastaken from Article 438 of th e Spanish Penal Code of 1870, asamended by Act No. 3195. The original provision, Article348 of th e Spanish Penal Code of 1850, gave th e privilege onlyto the husband and was justified by exaggerated notion ofthe husbaml.'s honor then prevailing in medieval Spain. ByAc t No. 3195 enacted in 1924, the privilege wa s extended tothe wife.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES.-'rhe original law (Art.348 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1850) ha s been regardedby modern Spanish authors as a cruel and barbarous one, unworthy of a place in the statute books of civilized society, an drepugnant to the conscience of ma n in this er a of enlightenedChristian civilization. Our law (Article 247 of the RevisedPellal Code) should be regarded in the same way. fo r it confersupon th e husband the power of life an d death over the wifeand her para'lnour, without trial and without right of appeal,an d upon th e wife the same power over the husband and hisquerida, making it worse, an d is contrary to the customs an dtraditions of our forefathers, transmuted into law in the Codeof Kalantiaw.

Mr. JUSTICE CAPISTRANO delivered the opinion of theCourt.
http:///reader/full/f06,QOO.OOhttp:///reader/full/f06,QOO.OO


2/10

OCTOBER 9, 1961 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 7361The trial court gave a summary of the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses, Enrico Ganzon, BonifacioFrancisco, Jose Villegas and Alfredo Guidato, but madeno express finding on what the theory of the prosecutionwas. An examination of the summary and of the testi-monies of the witnesses shows that the theory of the pro-secution apparently was, that the accused killed CrisantoArtuz due to resentment at Crisanto's repeated insistencethat he pay his debt of P80.00. The case for the prosecu-tion, reduced to it s lowest terms, is as follows: / CrisantoArtuz was a creditor of Jose Lauron in the (amount ofP80.00; Crisanto gave the loan to Jose on the occassionof the death of a child of the latter; the loan was payableon December 10, 1956, and sihce the maturity of the loan,Crisanto had gone to the house of Jose, once or twice aweek, to demand payment, bu t without success; in themorning of January 5, 1957, Crisanto, who had been urgedthe night before, by his wife, Helen, to collect the amount,accompanied by Enrico Ganzoll, whom he had accidentallymet on the way, arrived at the house of Jose in the town ofTapaz at about 10 o'clock; they found nobody in the houseand as Crisanto was sleepy, he went up the main stairwayand entered the house thru the main door, which he hadpushed open, and slept in the sala; at about 11 :35, Enricowoke up Crisanto and left after telling him that he wouldgo home; subsequently, Jose Lauron arrived and wentup the back stairway leading to the kitchen and enteredthe same; moments later, Bonifacio Francisco heard thudsinside the house and then groans, and saw Jose Lauron,smeared with blood, come down thru the main door andstairway, with a large bolo in his right hand and a blood-stained small bolo (erroneously called dagger in the testi-monies of the witnesses), in his left hand; at about 1o'clock in the afternoon, from his house Jose Villegas sawJose Lauron passing by and noticing Jose's bloody appear-ance, he asked what happened, to which Jose replied that hehad already accomplished ,what he wanted to do and thenasked where the municipal building was because he wasgoing there to surrender ; when Jose Lauron surrendered tothe guard at the time, he informed him that the small bolohe was delivering to him was the W3apon with which hehad killed Crisanto Artuz.After summarizing the evidence for the prosecution,the trial court immediately proceeded to consider thetheory of the defense, which was, that defendant havingsurprised his wife and Crisanto Artuz in the act of adul-tery killed Crisanto in the act, and re jected the same. Saidthe Court;

"The defendant admits having killed Crisanto Artuz but he con-tends that he did i t as he 'suprised Crisanto and his wife in fia-


3/10

7862 OFFICIAL GAZETTE VOL. 57, No. 41gran.t adultery. Testifyin.g in hi s defense, the defendant declaredthat on December 2, 1956, he went to Iloilo City to look fo r workthereat. While he was in Iloilo City his daughter, Marianita, visitedhim. When he inquired from Marianita how was her mother,Marianita cried and did not answer him. He asked Marianita whyshe was crying but l\-Iarianita did not immediately answer himuntil he threatened to whip her. When threatened, Marianitasaid that her mother was kissed and her breast was fondledby Crisanto Artuz. On hearing the answer of his daughter,he became pensive as he never thought that his wife wouldbe unfaithful to him. In order to verify or find ou t th etruth of th e information that he received from his daughter, hewent to Tapaz on January 5, 1957, leaving Iloilo City between eightand nine o'clock in the morning. On arriving in Tapaz at aboutone o'clock in the afternoon, he saw th e door of his house and thewindows in the sala or the living room closed. Despi te th e factthat the door an d windows were closed, he heard footsteps inside thehouse. What he did is to climb ill the banlluerahan, a sort ofcupboard, and on stepping on the 1100r of the house, he saw CrisantoArtuz on th e top of his wife. He then piclced up a bolo which wasplaced at the table and gave bolo blows to Crisanto Artuz twiceafter which Crisanto tried to wrest the bolo from him bu t Crisantodid not succeed and in the course of the struggle for the. possessionof the bolo, he happened to throw the bolo away. He then drewa small bolo from his waist which he provided himself before leavingIloilo City and stabbed Crisanto with it . After he saw Crisanto dead,he surrendered to the municipal building of Tapaz an d delivered toth e policeman 011 guard the small bolo that he used in killing Crisanto(Exhibit D). The defendant, however, could not tell th e precisemoment or time when his wife . left ail he said that his vision wasblurred while he was stabbing Crisallto. In the municipal buildinghe was investigated an d his statement was reduced in writing (Exhibits 2 and 2-A).

"The defendant denied having borrowed money from CrisantoArtuz on the occasion of the death of his child; that he is no tintimately related with Crisallto; and that his wife is not in anywayrelated with Crisanto. The defendant testified also that he ha snot met his wife immediately after the incident bu t while he wasalready detained in the provincial jail, his brother Proceso Lauronand his brother-in-Jaw Arcadio Gadong visited him. On the occasion of th e visit, he was asked whether he would forgive his wife,to which inquiry he answered yes, so th e wife visited him in jailand related to him that she sustained illicit relation with CrisantoArtuz."After weighing carefully the evidence presented by th e prosecution and th e defense, the Court finds that the contention of thedefendant that he surprised Crisanto Al'tuz and his wife Crisl:etaGadong in the act of sexual intercourse is not supported by credible evidence. The claim of th e defendant that he saw CrisantoArtuz on top of his wife at the time he killed him rests exclusivelyon his uncorroborated testimony. While the defendant has explainedin a detailed manner how he killed Crisanto Artuz, he could notstate how his wife was able to leave the scene of the incident.Considering that th e door and the windows of the heuse were closedand that th e house is too small, it would be very easy to detectwhere his wife passed when she escaped. From the testimony ofthe defendant, it seems that his wife disappeared from the houselike smoke in a thin air. Furthermore, if the defendant ha d reallysurprised his wife and Crisanto Artuz in the act of committingsexual intercourse, no plausible reason wa s given why he did not

bosatour

R,P!cotl.tbin

CClA

k\ \1\-b0nV03(ef,c,i

! tlj


4/10

OCTOBER 9, 1961 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 7363bolo or stab his wife bu t only Crisanto. He has not given an ysatisfactory explanation why his wife whom he found unfaithfulto him as he caught he r lying with Crisanto Artnz, left the placeunscathed or unwounded."In order to illvokethe,:'privilege provided in Article 247 of theRevised Penal 'Code', the evidence to prove that th e de.fendant surprised hi s wife an d Crisanto-Aitv.z lying together must be Clear an dcOl:Jvlncing, as the defense is in the nature of an affirmative allega-tion. In the case at bar, the evidence does not satisfy the mind ofthe Court that the defendant caught his wife and Crisanto Artuzin the act of committing sexual intercourse.

'Even if the accused caught his wife rising up an d 1. alreadystanding and buttoning his drawers, th e accused cannot invokethe privileg'e of article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, becausehe did no t surprise th e supposed offenders in th e very ac t ofcommitting adultery, but thereafter, if the respective positionsof the woman and the man were sufficient to warrant the con-elusion that they had committed th e carnal act.' (People V$ .Gonzales, 69 Phil., 66).

"Admitting that Cristeta Gadong sustained illicit relation withCrisnnto Artuz, still this fact does not exempt the defendant from ,.criminal responsibility as it does not fall within th e provisions ofArticle 247 of the Revised Penal Code."

What was the motive that compelled Jose Lauron tokill Crisanto Artuz? We find that the compelling motive. was to avenge his honor. He learned from his daughter,lVIarianita, that Crisanto Artuz had kissed, and fondled thebreasts of, his wife and that the two had also "wrestled"on the floor. He became pensive and brooded over thematter for five days. In the morning of January 5, armedwith a small bolo, he left Iloilo fo r his house in Tapaz inorder to verify or find out the truth. When he arrivedat his house at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon, he foundCrisanto Artuz lying down on the floor of the sala. Blind-ed by passion and obfuscation, he drew the small bolofrom his waist, and wildly and furiously attacked Crisantowith the same, inflicting upon the front and back partsof his body four mortal wounds and seven other woundswhich were not mortal. We deem it improbable, consider-ing the nature and number of the wounds, that the motive ofthe kiJIing was resentment due to Crisanto's repeatedinsistence that Jose Lauron pay his debt of !l80.00. Suchresentment could not have produced the blinding passionand obfuscation under which Jose Lauron killed Crisanto.At what time was Crisanto Artuz killed by Jose Lauron?According to the prosecution witness, Bonifacio Francisco,it was about 11 :35 A.M., but another prosecution wit-ness, Jose VlIIegas, said that it was at about 1 o'clock inthe afternoon when Jose Lauron passed by his house tosurrender at the municipal building. Another prosecutionwitness, Jesus Gardose, chief of police, said that he re-ceived the first report of the killing at about 1 :10 P.M.Considering how fast news travels in a small town, we


5/10

7364 OFFICIAL GAZETTE VOL. 57. No. 41 Dcsbafternoon. The accused also placed the time of his arrivaJfind that the killing occurred at about 1 o'clock in the saat his house at about 1 o'clock. fHth'surprise his wife and Crisanto Artuz in the ac t of adulteryThe crucial question in this appeal is : Did the accused 7-:is

It is our considered opinion, for the reasons statedand kill Crisanto in the ac t1 W(in the decision below, and fo r the reasons hereinafter bostated, that the answer must be ill the neg&tive. Ac decording to the accused, the first bolo blow was given when suCrisanto was on top of his wife. The resulting wound ththerefore, was on the' back. The second bolo blow, he 1'0sulying on his side so he was hi t at the back." This versionsaid, was given as Crisanto "rolled * * * as he was almost decannot be true because according to Dr. Romeo Bocala, st:the autopsy report Exhibit A, and the sketch on the back C1thereof showing the location of the wounds, there wereonly two slash wounds caused by bolo blows; one was on dath e back, wound No.4, which was an, thA:"Incised wound 4 inches long, 2 inches wide on the left infrasca- fapular region, directed downwards and externally from the 7th Intercostal space about 2 inches from the vertebral line. The wound mpenetrated the lung cavity cutting the 8th, 9th and 10th ribs." ti lThe other was on the stomach, wound No.1 which was an, w:"Incised wound 2* inches long, * inch wide on the sternum ofat the level of the 5th ster,no-chondral junction, with fracture of ththe sternal bone and penetrating the mediastinum." toBoth wounds were mortal. There were two other mortal hiwounds both above the stomach. One was wound No.2, 5,which was an, th

"Incised wound 11/2 inches long, 1 / ~ inch wide, 3 inches below inthe left nipple and 1 inch external to the nipple line on the left tochest penetrating the left pulmonary cavity. Subcutaneous tissue tl1extruded from the wound." h(The other was wound No.8, which was an, aI( Incised. wound 13/4 inches long, 3/4 inch wide on the righthypochondriac region along the right nipple line and about 2 inches J(, below the right costal area. Subcutaneous tissues extruded from J(the wound which penetrated: the abdominal cavity." rEThese wounds were stab or thrust wounds, not slash wounds. ir:

Three of the four mortal wounds having been inflicted aIon the stomach and on the chest, it follows that the hifirst bolo blow and then stabs of the furious attack were h.made while the victim lay on the floor face up, and blthat as he attempted to rise, he fell face down, and the aIslash wound on the back was then inflicted. SEWe find that the two slash wounds were inflicted by Wblows with small bolo, Exhibit D, which the accused OJsubsequently delivered to the police when he surrendered.


6/10

OCTOBER 9, 1961 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 7365 stating that it was the weapon with which he killed Crisanto Artuz, and that the two stab wounds were also inflicted by thrusts of the same small bolo. The blade ofthe small bolo at its widest, is almost 1-1/4 inches and is7-3/4 inches long, excluding the wooden handle whichis over 3 inches in length. I t is capable of inflicting saidwounds. I f the accused had used an ordinary or largebolo, the slash wounds would have been much larger anddeeper. 'l'he accused did not use a large bolo. I f he did,such bolo would Rave been no other than Exhibit B, bu tthis was found by the Chief of police in the :adjoiningroom without bloodstains. H e n c e ~ ' ~ h e n Jose Lauronsurrendered, the only weapon he delivered, or could havedelivered, to the guard was the bloodstained small bolo,stating that it was the weapon with which he had killedCrisanto Artuz.The testimony, on cross-examination, of the accused'sdaughter, Marianita, shows that when she peeped thruthe slits of the main bamboo door" she saw CrisantoArtuz who was trying to rise but could not because herfather was on top of him, bu t that she did not see hermother and that her mother was not in the house at thetime./ We find that Crisanto Artuz did have illicit relationswith Jose Lauron's wife; that when Jose Lauron learnedof the same from "his daughter on new year's eve of 1957,the matter weighed heavily on his mind fo r five days; thatto avenge his honor and armed with the small bolo, Exhibit D, he left Iloilo fo r Tapaz in the morning of January5, and arrived home at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon;that Crisanto Artuz arrived at the house at about 10 o'clockin the morning ostensibly to collect the debt of Jose, orto be with his wife, bu t there was nobody in the house;that Crisanto went up the main stairway and entered thehouse thru the main door, which he had pushed open,anel being sleepy he lay down on the floor of the sala(according to the testimony of Bonifacio Francisco) ; thatJose Lauron's wife was not there at the time; that whenJose Lauron later arrived and saw Crisanto sleeping orresting face up on the floor of the sala; .he regarded theinformation on the infidelity of his wife as confirmed,and the man he saw, as the intruder who had robbedhim of his honor; that blinded by passion and obfuscation,he drew the small bolo from his waist and furiously gaveblows and thrust at Crisanto, inflicting the mortal slashand stab wounds on the abdomen and the chest and subsequently, the mortal slash wound on the back. The otherwounds mentioned in the autopsy report, which were minorones, must have been inflicted after Crisanto was already


7/10

7366 OFFICIAL GAZETTE VOL. 57, No. 41dead, as the accused's passion and obfuscation subsidedgradually.

The appellant contends that his version of the killingunder the special circumstance was corroborated by thetestimony of his daughter, twelve-year-old Marianita, bythe circumstance that Dr. Bocala found the dead bodywith the drawers drawn almost to the knees such thatthe genital organs were exposed; and by appellant's affidavit subscribed and sworn to before the Chief of Police.The contention is not well taken . We find that the testimony of Marianita as a whole shows that she did no tsee he r mother at the time of the killing, that he r motherwas not in the house at the time. We are even convincedthat Marianita was not there at all, that she was not at thescene of the killing, that her story is untrue, and that itwas made-up only for purposes of corroboration. Therecord shows that at about the time of the killing, AlfredoGuidato saw Jose Lauron's wife, Cristeta Gadong, andher daughter, Marianita, at the market place of San Jose,Tapaz, waiting for a passenger truck for Iloilo. Withrespect to the circumstance concerning the dead man'sdrawers, the accused had sufficient time to place the samein the position in which the drawers were subsequentlyfound, to give color to the story which he conceived to tellafter he had committed the homicide. With regard to theaffidavit, the same was made at about 6 o'clock in the evening (according to the sworn statement, Exhibit 1) , ofthe Chief of Police, five hours after the killing. The accused had plenty of time to make a false affidavit of hisown concoction, or'on the advice of others. Hence, saidaffidavit cannot be considered as part of the res g e s t ~ ~ Appellant has not proved his plea a m o u n t i ~ g T o - a : r i - affirmmative defense with clear and convincing evidence.The present appeal is an attempt to get away with. homicide by invoking the privilege granted in Article247 of the Revised Penal Code. Similar attempts arel'ecorded in the annals of the Courts. These lead us to ahistorical and philosophical discussion of the article and ofour opinion on the law itself. Article 247 was takenfrom Article 438 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, asamended by Act No. 3195, The privilege granted inthe original article, taken from the Fuero Juzgo, and theSpanish Penal Code of 1850, Article 348, was justified byexaggerated motions of the husband's honor then prevailing in medieval Spain. The original provision in theSpanish Penal Code of 1870 which gave the privilege onlyto the husband, was as follows:

"Axt. 438. El marido que, sorprendiento en adulterio a su mujer,ma tar e en el acto a esta 6 al ad (lUtero, 0 la s causare alg-una de Jaslesiones graves, sera castigado con la pena de destierro.


8/10

OCTOBER 9, 1961 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 7367"S i les causare lesiones de otra clase, quedara exento de pena."Estas reglas sori aplicables en iguales circumsta,ncias a los padresl'especto de usu hijas menores de veintitres anos y sus corruptores,mientras aquellas vivieren en Ia casa paterna."E l beneficio de este acticulo no aprovecha a los que hubieren pro-l1lovido 6 facilitado la prostitucion de sus mujeres e hijas."

In 1924, the Legislature amended the Article by Act No.8195 so as to extend the privilege to the wife. The article,as amended, was subsequently incorporated into the Revised Penal Code as Art. 247 thereof. The article pro-vides:"Art. 247. DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES, INFLICTED UNDER EXCEP-

TIONAf, CmCUMSTANcEs.-Any legally married person who, havingsurprised his spouse in the act of committ.ing sexual intercoursewith another person, shall kill an y of them or both of them' in theact or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them an y seriol1sphysical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destiM'ro."If he shall inflict upon them physical i r i ] i i I i e ~ of an y other kind,he shall be exempt from punishment. '

"These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstance, toparents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age,and their seducers, while the daughters ar e living with theirparents ."""

"Any person who shall promote 0; facilitate the pl'ostitution of .hiswife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelityof the other spouse shall no t be entitled to the benefits of thisarticle."The original Spanish law has been regarded by modernSpanish authors as a cruel and barbarous one, unworthyof a place in the statute books of civilized society, andrepugnant to the conscience of man in this era of enlightened Christian civilization. Our law should be regardedin the same way, for it confers upon the husband thepower of life and death over th e wife and her paramour,without trial and without right of appeal. It also confersthe same power upon the wife over the husband and hisquerida, making it worse. The penalty of destie1TO isnot really intended as a penalty bu t to remove the killerspouse from .the v i c i n i t y ' ~ _ ~ _ n ( l to protect him o r he,:r; from Iacts' of repriSiiI-principaIIy b y ' r e l a t i ~ e s of Hie deceased~ p _ ( ) ! ! f ! . The subsequent Spanish Penal Code (1928),did not contain. the old provision of the Penal Code of1870 on the subject. In it s stead, it had a provision thatthe killing by the husband should be considered as committed under passion and obfuscation, a special mitigatingcircumstance which would lessen the penalty by twodegrees. Arti cle 247 of the Revised Penal Code is alsocontrary to the customs and traditions of our forefathers,transmuted into law in the Code of Kalantiavl,T, which provided in Article X thereof,. that:

" I t shan be an obligation: let every mother teach mattel's pertain-ing to lust secretly to he r d a ~ l g h t e r s , and prepare them fo r woman-


9/10

7368 OFFICIAL GAZETTE VOL. 57, No. 41 Ochood; le t no t men be cruel nor punish their women when they catchthem in the act of adultery.

"Whoever shall disobey shall be killed (by being cu t to pieces)an d thrown to th e caymans."The Code Commission, in view of the,

"Need fo r immediate revision of all existing substantive lawsof th e Philippines an d of codifying them in conformity with thecustoms, traditions and idiosyncracies of th e Filipino people an dwith modern trends in legislation and th e progressive principles oflaw" (Executive Order No. 48),in drafting the proposed Code of Crimes, amended Art.247, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, and incorporated it as Article 185 thereof, to read as follows:

'Art. 185. HOMICIDE OR PHYSICAL INJURIES DUE TO FAMILYHONOR.-Any husband or wife, who, upon surprising his or he rspouse in the ac t of sexual intercourse with another person, or ina situation which creates a reasonable belief that such an intercourse is about to be or has just been committed, shall intentionallykill or inflict a very gTave physical injury upon either or both ofthem, shall be repressed with light imprisonment." (6 months and1 day to 3 years).

Since it may take a long time for the Legislature to consider and approve the proposed Code of Crimes, we deemit advisable to recommend to the President and the Congress, the immediate amendment of Article 247 of theRevised Penal Code so as to read (in it s entirety), asfollows:

"Art. 247. HOMICIDE OR PHYSICAL INJURIES DUE TO FAMILYHONOR.-Any husband or wife who, upon surprising his or herspouse in the ac t of sexual intercourse with another person, or in asituation which creates a reasonable belief that such an intercourseis about to be or ha s just been committed, shall intentionally killor inflict a, very grave physical injury upon either or l both ofthem, shall be punished with priswn correccional.

" I f said person shall inflict upon them or either of them an y gra,vephysical injury, he or she shall be punished with arrcsto mayar."Ii an y other physical injury has been inflicted, the actor shall beexempt from an y repression."These rules shall be applicable under th e same circumstances,

to parents with respect to their daughter under twenty years of agean d her seducer,"and the enactment of a new article to be known as Article247 (a) , as fo11ows:

"Art. 247 (a) . -EXCEPTIONS.-The next preceeding article shallnot apply to:(1) The husband who shall promote or facilitate th e prostitution

or corruption of his wife or daughter, or the spouse who shall haveconsented to the infidelity of the other;(2) Any spouse who has without just cause abandoned his orher f'pouse fo r three years or longer;(8) A void or voidable marriage."Going back to the merits of the appeal we find that under

the circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the mitigat

i n ~ ant ~ l dBoftoTl:apofH(


10/10

OCTOBER 9, 1961 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 7369ing circumstance of passion .and obfuscation. Accordingly,and in view of the other mi tigating circumstance of Y9!!.l.n:..tary . surrender, the judgment Qfthe lower court is modified,-sentenCing the a.ppellant to an indeterminate penaltyof Six (6) months and One. (1) day of prisi6n correccionalto Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prisi6n mayor.Thus modified, the judgment is affirmed. Costs againstappellant. ,Copies of this Opinion shall be furnished the Presidentlof the Philippines and the competent authorities of bothHouses of Congress.

Makalintal and Castro, JJ., concur.Judgment modified.

official gazette 2011

Documents