G.R. No. L-32042 February 13, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO BENITO Y RESTUBOG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Alberto Benito y Restubog, was charged with murder for shooting and killing Pedro Moncayo, Jr. on December 12, 1969. After initially pleading not guilty, the accused, assisted by counsel, withdrew his plea and entered an unconditional plea of guilty to the charge. The trial court repeatedly explained the consequences, including the possibility of the death penalty. Following the plea, both the defense and prosecution presented evidence on mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The trial court found the crime qualified by treachery and appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank, offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. It imposed the death penalty.
The defense argued on appeal that the lower court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and vindication of a grave offense. The defense claimed the killing was in retaliation for a remark made by the victim earlier that day, which the accused perceived as an insult. The prosecution countered that the remark was not a grave offense and that the lapse of several hours between the remark and the killing negated immediate vindication.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and vindication of a grave offense should be appreciated in favor of the accused, and the proper determination of the penalty after a recalculation of all attendant circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the judgment. It held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be credited to the accused. His actions—calling the police, voluntarily approaching them at the scene, and later confessing and surrendering the weapon at the station—clearly demonstrated his intent to surrender himself to the authorities.
However, the Court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense was not present. The victim’s alleged remark was general in nature and not specifically directed at the accused. Furthermore, the several-hour interval between the provocation and the killing provided ample time for reflection, negating the element of immediate retaliation required by law. The Court sustained the finding of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, as the accused’s actions, including arming himself and following the victim, indicated a deliberate plan. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank was also maintained.
Consequently, the Court recalculated the circumstances: two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender) offset by two aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation and disregard of rank). For the crime of murder, punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to death, the presence of equal mitigating and aggravating circumstances dictates the imposition of the penalty in its medium period pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. The death penalty was thus reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of damages was affirmed.