GR 129895; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129895; April 30, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PO3 ARMANDO DALAG y CUSTODIO, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant PO3 Armando Dalag, a police officer, was charged with parricide for the death of his wife, Leah Nolido Dalag. Their marriage was marked by frequent violent quarrels where Leah would sustain injuries. On the evening of August 15, 1996, while Armando was drinking, a quarrel ensued after Leah admonished him. Their children, Francis and Princess Joy, witnessed their father push, kick, punch, and bang their mother’s head against a wall. Leah briefly fled but was pursued. The assault continued, and she lost consciousness. The children found her unconscious the next morning. She was later brought to the hospital, never regained consciousness, and died on August 22, 1996. The post-mortem examination revealed Cranio-Cerebral Trauma and multiple injuries.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Armando Dalag of the crime of parricide.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully proved the elements of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code: that Leah was killed; that she was the lawful spouse of the appellant; and that he was the perpetrator. The testimonies of the children, who were credible eyewitnesses, established that the fatal injuries were inflicted by the appellant during a sustained physical assault. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the death was accidental from a fall, finding such defense inconsistent with the medical evidence of severe, multiple injuries. The Court also addressed the trial court’s erroneous appreciation of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. It clarified that the appellant’s act of bringing his wife to the hospital was not an unequivocal act of surrender to authorities but a belated attempt at aid, thus not mitigating. However, the Court found that the victim’s attempt to escape to get medicine for the appellant’s injured foot constituted passive provocation, which is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty was reduced to the minimum period, which is reclusion perpetua. The award of civil indemnity was affirmed, and moral damages were additionally granted to the children.