G.R. No. 476 : January 7, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. LICERIO ABIJAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the evening of October 25, 1899, Andres Opao, the vice-president of the barrio of Dos Hermanas in Talisay, was inspecting the area to ensure compliance with an order to place lights in front of houses. He found that Licerio Abijan had not placed a light. After Abijan failed to present himself when called twice by a deputy, Opao stationed himself near Abijan’s house. When Abijan finally descended, Opao took him to task for the violation and ordered his arrest. Abijan then assaulted Opao with a dagger, inflicting a mortal wound in the left groin and a light wound on the palm. Opao died from the groin wound. Abijan fled but later confessed to the attack, claiming he acted because Opao used harsh words and struck him with a cane, causing intense pain that “blinded” him. This claim of provocation was not corroborated by the sole witness present, the deputy Eugenio Arca.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of the complex crime of assault upon an agent of the Government with homicide, and whether the mitigating and aggravating circumstances were properly appreciated.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The acts constituted the complex crime of assault upon an agent of the Government with homicide under Articles 249, 250, and 404 in relation to Article 89 of the Penal Code. The accused assaulted a government official who was in the discharge of his duties, and the assault resulted in the official’s death. The accused’s claim of provocation (that he was struck with a cane) was not proven and, even if true, did not justify the fatal assault with a prohibited weapon in response to a lawful order of arrest.

The Court held that the extenuating circumstances (the fourth and seventh of Article 9) applied by the lower court were improper. The accused’s habitual intoxication could not be considered a mitigating circumstance. The aggravating circumstance of using a prohibited weapon (Article 10, No. 24) was present but was offset by the generic mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Article 11). Applying Article 89 for complex crimes, the penalty for homicide in its medium degree was imposed.

The Supreme Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction to review and revise the judgment, reversed the lower court’s decision. Licerio Abijan was sentenced to eighteen years, two months, and twenty-one days of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory penalties, an indemnity of 1,000 Mexican pesos to the widow and heirs of the deceased, and payment of the costs.