G.R. No. L-47941 April 30, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME TOMOTORGO y ALARCON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Jaime Tomotorgo was convicted of parricide for killing his wife, Magdalena de los Santos. The couple had a dispute over Magdalena’s persistent request to sell their conjugal home in Siruma, Camarines Sur, and relocate to her in-laws’ house in Tinambac. Tomotorgo refused, as he did not wish to abandon their home and his farming livelihood. On June 23, 1977, after returning from work and finding his wife and infant son gone, he located them on a trail. He pleaded with Magdalena to return home, but she refused. When he attempted to take the child, she threw the baby onto the grass. This act provoked Tomotorgo’s intense anger.
Incensed, Tomotorgo picked up a piece of wood and struck his wife repeatedly until she fell. He then carried her and the child home, where she later died. He subsequently surrendered to authorities, bringing the weapon used. Initially pleading not guilty, he later changed his plea to guilty at trial. The trial court found him guilty of parricide but considered three mitigating circumstances: voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and passion and obfuscation. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty for parricide instead of applying Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code, given the accused’s alleged lack of intent to kill.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The legal logic is that Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes rules for when the crime committed is different from that intended, applies only to mistakes in the identity of the victim or the person assaulted, not to mistakes in the result of a deliberate criminal act. The Court cited People v. De Gracia, which held that Article 49 does not apply when an accused, acting with criminal intent, commits an assault that results in a more serious crime than initially intended. Here, Tomotorgo deliberately assaulted his wife with a piece of wood. The resulting death, even if he only intended to inflict physical injuries, does not alter the nature of the crime from parricide to a lesser offense. The felony committed is determined by the actual consequences of the unlawful act, not the subjective intent regarding the severity of the outcome. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was already considered in his favor. Thus, the penalty for parricide was correctly imposed. The Court, however, noted the mitigating circumstances and the accused’s lengthy detention, strongly recommending executive clemency or commutation of his sentence.