G.R. No. 1749 : March 21, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FORTUNATO ODICTA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the morning of October 4, 1903, in the barrio of Matangcong, town of Sigma, Province of Capiz, Fortunato Odicta killed his wife Juliana Obafial, his two children Honorato and Maria, and a 15-year-old boy named Martin Abuna who lived in his house. The bodies of the children and Martin Abuna were found inside the house, while the wife’s body was found outside near the kitchen of a neighboring house, where she had fled seeking help. The victims suffered mortal wounds inflicted with a bolo. An eyewitness, Nicasio Castillo, heard the wife’s cries for help and saw the defendant with a bolo, hearing him tell his wife, “That one you have received is enough,” before she fell dead. The defendant, upon being charged with parricide, pleaded guilty but claimed he committed the acts while heavily intoxicated on tuba and did not know what he was doing. However, several witnesses, including the municipal president and a physician, testified that the defendant was not drunk at the time of the incident and was not habitually drunk. A medical examination found the defendant physically and mentally normal, with no symptoms of insanity or mental derangement.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Fortunato Odicta, is criminally liable for the crimes of parricide and murder, and if so, what penalty should be imposed considering the alleged circumstances of intoxication and somnambulism.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s criminal liability but modified the penalty. The Court held that the defendant was guilty as the sole principal in the commission of triple parricide (for killing his wife and children) and murder (for killing Martin Abuna with treachery, as the attack occurred while the victim was asleep). The defense of somnambulism or unconsciousness was not proven. While the defendant’s claim of non-habitual intoxication was considered as a special extenuating circumstance under Article 9, paragraph 6 of the Penal Code, it was counterbalanced by the aggravating circumstance of superior force (Article 10, paragraph 9). The Court also considered the defendant’s low grade of intelligence as another special extenuating circumstance under Article 11. Balancing these, the Court imposed the lesser indivisible penalty. The death penalty imposed by the trial court was set aside. The defendant was sentenced to cadena perpetua (life imprisonment) with the accessories prescribed by Article 54 of the Penal Code, and to pay the costs.