G.R. No. 130654 July 28, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO BASIN JAVIER, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier was charged with parricide for hacking his legitimate spouse, Florentina Javier, to death with a bolo in their home on June 15, 1996. The prosecution established that after hearing their mother scream, the victims’ children found her lifeless body in the bedroom. Their father, the accused, was also found with a self-inflicted abdominal wound. A police investigation recovered the bloodied bolo, and a child testified that the accused confessed to the killing. The medical report detailed severe injuries, including an almost severed neck. During trial, the accused admitted to the killing but interposed the defense of insanity, claiming his mind went “totally blank” due to prolonged loss of sleep. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of parricide and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty for the crime of parricide, specifically regarding the appreciation of mitigating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the exempting circumstance of insanity, as the defense presented no medical evidence or expert testimony to substantiate the claim. The Court also rejected the mitigating circumstances of illness and passion or obfuscation raised for the first time on appeal. The claim of illness from lack of sleep was unsupported by medical proof, and the alleged jealousy over an illicit affair was not sufficiently established during trial to constitute the legal condition of passion or obfuscation. Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. This is a flexible penalty where the application of the lesser or greater penalty depends on the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. In this case, the information alleged no aggravating circumstances, and the prosecution proved none. Conversely, no mitigating circumstances were appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant. Therefore, applying Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, when only mitigating circumstances are present and there are no aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Consequently, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty is the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was sustained.