G.R. No. 27093 , August 11, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. JULIAN FLORES

FACTS

On May 7, 1926, during a gathering at a house in Balungao, Pangasinan, a heated argument ensued between the appellant, Julian Flores, and the victim, Fernando Ballesteros. The quarrel began when Flores told Ballesteros that he (Flores) would take care of Ballesteros and his family “like pigs.” Ballesteros retorted by calling Flores a “bastard son.” The altercation was pacified by others present. Shortly after, Ballesteros left for home. Flores then took a wooden rice-pestle (“alo”), followed Ballesteros, overtook him, and struck him on the left side, fracturing two ribs and causing his death moments later. Flores was charged with and convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance, which appreciated the mitigating circumstances of unjust provocation, *arrebato* (obfuscation), and *obcecación* (passion). Flores appealed, arguing self-defense, the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness, and lack of intent to cause such a grave injury.

ISSUE

1. Whether the killing was committed in legitimate self-defense.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of drunkenness and lack of intent to cause so grave an injury should be appreciated in favor of the appellant.
3. Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstances of unjust provocation, *arrebato*, and *obcecación*.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the trial court.

1. On Self-Defense: The Court found no evidence to support the claim of self-defense. The record showed that Flores followed the deceased, attacked him suddenly with a club, and gave him no opportunity to defend himself. The trial court’s finding that the killing was not in self-defense was sustained.

2. On Mitigating Circumstances:
* Drunkenness: The Court agreed with the trial court that the claim of intoxication was not supported by the evidence.
* Lack of Intent: The Court rejected this claim. Considering the weapon used (a heavy club), the fact that Flores pursued the victim, and the suddenness of the attack, the Court held that Flores must be held fully responsible for the consequences of his act.
* Unjust Provocation, *Arrebato*, and *Obcecación*: The Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s appreciation of these mitigating circumstances. The mutual exchange of grave insults during the quarrel constituted unlawful provocation by the victim. The sequence of eventsthe heated argument, its pacification, and the immediate subsequent attackshowed that Flores acted under the influence of passion and obfuscation arising from the prior altercation.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The sentence of the Court of First Instance, imposing twelve years and one day of *reclusión temporal*, with accessories, an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and costs, was affirmed.