GR 99259; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIO SANTOS Y DELGADO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Emilio Santos was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila for the murder of Valentino Guevarra and the frustrated murder of Francisco Lacsa. The prosecution evidence established that on October 22, 1989, Francisco Lacsa and Valentino Guevarra went to the house of appellant’s father, Emmanuel Santos, to peacefully settle a prior misunderstanding. They were met with aggression, leading to a chase. Appellant, his brother, and two others overtook the victims. Valentino was hacked and stabbed to death, and Francisco was severely wounded, losing four fingers. Appellant admitted stabbing Francisco but claimed he acted in self-defense and to avenge an earlier alleged assault by the victims against his father.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstances of (1) incomplete defense of a relative and (2) immediate vindication of a grave offense against an ascendant.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and rejected the claimed mitigating circumstances. For incomplete defense of a relative under Article 11(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the requisites of self-defense must be present on the part of the relative being defended. Appellant failed to prove that his father, Emmanuel, was unlawfully aggressed by the victims at the time of the incident. The evidence showed the victims were fleeing and were not the aggressors when appellant and his cohorts attacked them. Thus, the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative was not even partially established.
Regarding the ordinary mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense under Article 13(6), the Court found the claim unsubstantiated. Appellant’s knowledge of the alleged prior offense against his father was based on hearsay from his uncle, which is inadmissible and insufficient to prove the offense occurred. Furthermore, even assuming a prior altercation, appellant admitted he had time to arm himself with a samurai and await the victims’ arrival. This interval provided sufficient time for him to recover his equanimity, negating the “immediacy” required by law. The circumstances demonstrated a deliberate and vengeful attack, not an act of immediate vindication. The appealed decision was affirmed in toto.