ART 12

4. irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of a greater

injury
US v. CABALLEROS
4 Phil. 350 (1905)

Facts:

Robert Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros were convicted as accessories to the crime of assassination
or murder of four American school-teachers, having buried the corpses of the victims to conceal the
crime. They were allegedly coerced.

Issue:

WON the defense under Art12(5) is tenable

Held:

Yes. Not only is Baculis confession that he only assisted in the burial of the corpses because he was
compelled by the murderers, but this was corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime, Sabate.
Sabate said that he was present when the Americans were killed; that Baculi was not a member of the
group of murderers but he was in the banana plantation gathering some bananas; that when he heard
the shots he began to run; that he was, however, seen by Damaso and Isidro, the leaders of the band;
that the latter called to him and striking him with the butts of their guns forced him to bury the corpses.
As for Caballeros, there was no proof that he took any part in the execution of the crime; there was
conclusive proof to the contrary. Sabate and Baculi declared that Caballeros did not take any part in
the burial of the aforesaid corpses, nor was he even in the place of the occurrence when the burial
took place. Their failure to report the crime is not an offense punished by the Penal Code.
 People vs Loreno
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EUSTAQUIO LORENO y MALAGA and JIMMY MARANTAL y LONDETE, accused-appellants.

G.R. No. L-54414 July 9, 1984

Facts: Barangay Captain Elias Monge, his family & Francisco Fabie, their farm helper were home
preparing for the barrio dance when Loreno & a man in a dark sweater came by their house, saying there
was a letter from the chief (hepe). Elias let them in & when they read the letter, it said that they were
NPA. They were made to lie on the ground while other men went in the house. The alleged NPA
members robbed the family of several belongings. Moreover, the man in the dark sweater raped the 2
daughters of Elias, Cristina & Monica. Elias, Cristina, Monica & Fabie positively identified Loreno as 1 of
the robbers. Fabie also identified Marantal.

Issue: WON Loreno and Marantal are exempted from criminal liability under the defenses of Article 12(5)
and (6)

Held: No. Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal claimed that they acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater
injury. They admitted that they were in the house of Elias that night but they were only forced by a man
wearing black sweater and his five companions who claimed to be members of the NPA, with the threat
that if they did not obey, appellants and their families would be killed. This was found untenable.

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with
freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will
but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and
of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is
not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

Loreno and Marantal had admitted their participation in the commission of the crimes of robbery and rape
against Elias and is family. Facts inconsistent with the appellants defense were established:
(a) having been armed with a firearm, (b) Loreno positioning himself near the post of the
balcony without prior instructions, (c) Loreno furnishing the rattan to tie the victims, and (d)
Loreno pointing his gun to the other victims when Monica was being raped. Furthermore,
Loreno brought Beata, Eliass wife to the different rooms to open the trunks and closets,
without the threat and assistance of the man in dark sweater. And lastly, Loreno tried to
molest Cristina after being raped by the man in dark sweater.

When Marantal kicked Fabie when the latter saw his face, it was due to the fact the Fabie had recognized
him & the blows which he gave to Fabie who was still tied was a warning not to report his presence &
participation in the crime. Furthermore, there was no showing that Jimmy Marantal raised a voice of
protest nor did an act to prevent the commission of the crimes. All these demonstrated the voluntary
participation & the conspiracy of the appellants. Not only was their defense untenable, but the facts show
that that there was conspiracy.

People vs Del Rosario

--------------------------------------------------------------------------????????????????????????

5. Insuperable cause
People vs Bandian

FACTS: One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket apparently to
respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes
stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to
support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her to her house and placed her on the bed. He called on
Adriano Comcom to help them Comcom saw he body of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the
thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. She claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio
Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and three her child into the
thicket to kill it. The trial court gave credit to this opinion.

Issue: WON Bandian is guilty of infanticide

Held: No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed willfully or
consciously, or at least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The
evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her childs death in one way or another, or in
abandoning it in the thicket, did so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or
abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with a former lover, which was not unknown to her
second lover, Kirol, took place three years before the incident; her married life with Kirolshe considers
him her husband as he considers him his wifebegan a year ago; as he so testified at the trial, he knew
of the pregnancy and that it was his and that theyve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the child. The
appellant, thus, had no cause to be ashamed of her pregnancy to Kirol.

Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable,
due to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful or insuperable
to constitute the seventh exempting circumstance, to take hernchild from the thicket where she had
given it birth, so as not to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing its life. If by going into
the thicket to pee, she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in that same place and later
abandoning it, not because of imprudence or any other reason than that she
was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not be blamed because it all
happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law exempts from liability any
person who so acts and behaves under such circumstances (Art. 12(4), RPC). Thus, having the fourth and
seventh exempting circumstances in her favor, she is acquitted of the crime that she had been accused
of.
Villareal dissent:

The appellant should be acquitted not on the basis that she is exempt from criminal liability under Art.
12, Sec. 4 but because she has committed no criminal act or commission at all.

Art. 3 of the RPC provides that acts and ommissions punishavle by law are felonies, which may be
committed not only by means of deceit but also by means of fault. In this case, the appellant was not
aware that she had delivered her baby and that the child had been exposed to the rough weather and to
the cruelty of animals. It CANNOT be held that she deceitfully committed the crime of infanticide or that
of the abandonment of a minor, becasuse there was NO DELIBERATE INTENT (= not dolo) + NO
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE BABY HAD ACTUALLY BEEN BORN (= not culpa).

C. Other exculpatory causes

1. Instigation
People vs Lua Chu
PEOPLE VS LUA CHU
G.R. No. 34917
September 7, 1931
Facts: Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng were convicted of the illegal importation of opium.
On November, 1929, Tieng wrote to his correspondent in Hongkong to send him a
shipment of opium. Tieng went to Juan Samson's house and told him that the opium
shipment consisted of 3,000 tins for P2 a tin, and that opium is in the vessel Kolambugan,
awaiting shipment direct to Cebu. When the vessel arrived, Tieng was told that he must
pay over the Php6000 before the opium be taken out.
The next day, Samson informed of what had taken place to Colonel Francisco, who then
instructed the Captain Buenconsejo, to discuss the capture of the opium owners with
Samson. Samson also went to the office of the provincial fiscal, reported the same, and
asked for a stenographer to note his conversation with Tieng that night and in the
presence of Captain Buenconsejo.
On December 17, 1929, Buenconsejo, Fernando, and the stenographer went to
Samson's house and concealed themselves behind a curtain made of strips of wood.
Samson asked Tieng where the opium was, and the latter answered that it was in the
cases numbered 11 to 18 a total of 3,252 tins. Tieng returned later that night with Lua
Chu, who said he was not the sole owner of the opium.
Samson then interrogated Chu on when the former was going to get the opium, on
whether Chu had brought the money, on how he had come to bring in the opium; Chu
would answer them, while Buenconsejo listened in. As Tieng was handing certain papers
over to his companion, Uy Ay; Buenconsejo, who had been hiding, appeared and arrested
the two men. After the two to the Constabulary headquarters, and notified the fiscal,
Buenconsejo and Samson went to Chu's home to search it and arrest him, and took him
to the Constabulary headquarters, and then went to the customhouse to examine the
cases marked.
Contention of the accused: The accused principal defense was that they were induced by
Samson to import the opium in question
Contention of the state: The state contends that the defendants do not deny their
participation in the act in question. Samson denied his connection with the offense for
purposes of gain; further contending that he smoothed the way for the introduction of the
prohibited drug, but he did not do so to help them carry their plan to a successful issue,
rather to assure the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers.

Issue: Whether or not the Samson instigated the accused to import opium

Decision: Samson neither induced nor instigated the herein accused to import the opium
in question, but pretended to have an understanding with the collector of customs,
Natividad; not to gain the Php2000 intended for him out of the transaction, but in order
the better to assure the seizure of the prohibited drug and the arrest of the surreptitious
importers. There is certainly nothing immoral in this or against the public good which
should prevent the Government from prosecuting and punishing the culprits, for this is not
a case where an innocent person is induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him,
but it simply a trap set to catch a criminal.
The mere fact that the Samson pretended to agree a plan for smuggling illegally imported
opium through the customhouse, in order the better to assure the seizure of said opium
and the arrest of its importers, is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the latter.
Decision against the accused is affirmed.

People vs Doria
People vs Doria
Puno, J:

In 1995, members of the PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from 2civilian
informants (CI) that one Jun was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City.
The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest Jun in a buy-bust operation. The Narcom agents
formed Team Alpha they designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer. At 7:20 a.m., Jun
appeared. PO3 Manlangit handed Jun the marked bills worth P1,600.00.The exchange of money
for a marijuana was completed. Jun asked PO3 to wait for an hour while he will get the
mariujuana from his associate. After a while, when Jun was about to give the marijuana,PO3
Manlangit forthwith arrested Jun. They frisked Jun but did not find the marked bills on him.
Upon inquiry, Jun left the money to his associate Neneth. The team went to the house and they
noticed a box under the dining table. Suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered Neneths house
and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and found that it contained 10 bricks of what
appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. Simultaneous with the boxs discovery, SPO1
Badua recovered the marked bills from Neneth. They arrested Neneth and Jun.They learned
that Jun is Florencio Doria y Bolado while Neneth is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. Both of them
were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Actof
1972. The trial court found the existence of an organized/syndicated crime group and
sentenced both to death and pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. Hence, the automatic review.

In a number of cases, the Court differentiated entrapment and instigation:

People vs Galicia - The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission
of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted
to by the peace officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution
of his criminal plan.
People v. Tan Tiong - the Court of Appeals further declared that "entrapment is no bar to the
prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker."

People v. Tiu Ua - Entrapment is not contrary to public policy. It is instigation that is deemed
contrary to public policy and illegal.

The test used in courts is a combination of objective (focused on acts of law enforcer) and
subjective (focused on predisposition of accused to commit the offense).

W/N the warrantless arrest of Doria was lawful? YES

Appellant was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in
flagrante delicto as a result of a buy bust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-
bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

W/N warrantless arrest and search of her person and residence was lawful? NO

Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give
ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary
to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the
policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be
justified under the second instance of Rule 113. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without
warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an
"actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." If there is no showing that the person who
effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person
arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.

Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the
search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and
marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. The fact that the box
containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana[137] was found in the house of accused-appellant
Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.

Ruling: Doria sentenced to reclusion perpetua; Gaddao is acquitted.

NOTES:
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that
view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The
"plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

People vs Casio

Facts: On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a nongovernmental organization,

coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City.
Chief PSI George Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and
PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso composed the team of police operatives, Luardo and Veloso were
designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests. IJM
provided them with marked money, which was recorded in the police blotter. The team went to
Queensland Motel and rented adjacent Rooms 24 and 25. Room 24 was designated for the
transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso
proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu Citys red light district where
the accused noticed them and called their attention. Negotiation occured and upon the signal, the
accused was arrested and the two minors were taken into custody by the DSWD officials.

Issue: Whether or not accused is liable for trafficking of persons.

Held: Yes. Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been
expanded to include the following acts:

(1) The act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victims consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders;

(2) The means used include by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability
of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person

(3) The purpose of trafficking includes the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms
of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs
The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited by accused when their services
were peddled to the police who acted as decoys. AAA was a child at the time that accused
peddled her services.66 to work as a prostitute because she needed money. AAA also stated that
she agreed Accused took advantage of AAAs vulnerability as a child and as one who need
money, as proven by the testimonies of the witnesses.

Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic Act No. 9208.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose
of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative
purposes shall also be considered as trafficking in persons even if it does not involve any of the
means set forth in the preceding paragraph.

Accused is further guilty of qualified trafficking. SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The
following are considered as qualified trafficking:

1. When the trafficked person is a child;

2. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the
Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation,forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercise
authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or
employee;
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the
military or law enforcement agencies;
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunod eficiency Virus
(HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Art 13
D. Mitigating Circumstances Art.13
1. Incomplete justification or exemption
People vs Jaurigue
----?????????-------
 People vs Narvaez

Guilermo vs People
------??????????------

2. Age (under 18 over 70)

3. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

People vs Ural

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE) VS. DOMINGO URAL (ACCUSED-APPELLANT)

L-30801 MARCH 27 1974
J. AQUINO
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE CFI OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR

FACTS:
- Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a policeman inside the jail where he was
boxing prisoner Napola (who was imprisoned for being drunk). When Napola fell to the ground
he U kicked him and poured some liquid on N and then ignited Ns body.
- Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he sustained 2nd degree burns on the arms,
neck, left side of the face and one half of the body including the back. She also testified that
without any medical intervention, the burns would have caused death
- Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated burn as the cause of death.
- During the trial, the prosecutors failed to present the detention prisoners who saw the burning
of Napola as witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased
- Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and was
ordered to pay for costs

ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

Held: TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder.

- Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he heard a scream for help from Napola
whose shirt was in flames when found by him, he removed the shirt, but did not summon the
doctor because he thought that the burns were not serious.
o SC: this statement cannot prevail over the testimony of Alberio
 o This statement does not prove that he was not the one who burned Napola, at most this
could only mean that he was alarmed by the consequences of his evil act
- Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying that he was not listed as a prosecution
witness and that he was convicted of murder in the past
o Wouldnt preclude him from being a credible witness.
o Since there was no police investigation (accused a police officer), the investigation that
ensued was done by a special counsel of the fiscals office. A possible explanation of
alberio not being listed at first.
o The statements of the witnesses for the defense were not inconsistent with that of
Alberios.

Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in Alberios testimony.

- The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater than what was intended).
o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1).
o TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating circumstance that the offender had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
No intent to kill but only to maltreat the drunk napola who might have been
making a nuisance of himself
He realized the fearful consequence of his felonious act, he allowed Napola to
secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary
- Since the mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance, TC correctly imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for murder.

DECISION: TC decision AFFIRMED.

People vs Gonzales

----?????????----------

4. Sufficient provocation
People vs Pagal
Facts: Accused-appellants Pagal and Torcellino were charged with the crime of robbery
with homicide, with the generic aggravating circumstances of nightime purposely sought
to better accomplish their criminal design; evident premeditation; in disregard of the
respect due the offended party; and with abuse of confidence, the accused being then
employees of the offended party. When the case was called for arraignment, the
accused entered a plea of guilty but they were allowed afterwards to prove the
mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon animpulse so
powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation. The RTC, after considering the 4
aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstance of only plea of guilt, found them
guilty of the crime charged, sentencing them with the penalty of death. The case was
elevated to the SC by virtue of the mandatory review on account of the penalty of death
imposed on the accused.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in not appreciating in favor of the accused the
mitigating circumstances of (1) sufficientprovocation and (2) passion or obfuscation.

Held: NO, the RTC is correct. As a rule, two or more mitigating circumstances arising
from the same act cannot be considered as separate and distinct circumstances but
should be treated as one. Thus, in this case, the mitigating circumstance of
sufficientprovocation cannot be considered because the alleged provocationwhich
caused the obfuscation arose from the same incident, which is the alleged maltreatment
and/or ill-treatment caused by the victims towards the accused-appellants.

As to the circumstance of passion and obfuscation, it cannot be treated as mitigating if

the crime involved was planned and calmly meditated before its execution, such as in
this case of robbery where the appellants are expected to have carefully planned its
execution. Thus, in People vs. Daos, a case of robbery withhomicide, this Court rejected
the claim of the appellants therein that passion and obfuscation should have been
estimated in their favor, because the death of the victim therein took place on the
occasion of a robbery, which, before its execution, had been planned and calmly
meditated by the appellants.

Finally, the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against
them occurred much earlier than the date of the commission of the
crime. Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and
immediately proceeding the act. We hold that the trial court did not commit any error in
not appreciating the said mitigating circumstances in favor of the appellants.

Urbano vs People

On September 28, 1993, at around 8:00 p.m., the victim Brigido Tomelden and petitioner were at the
compound of the Lingayen Water District (LIWAD) in Lingayen, Pangasinan, having just arrived from
a picnic in the nearby town of Bugallon, Pangasinan, where, with some other co-workers, they drunk
beer in a restaurant. While inside the compound, the two had a heated altercation in the course of
which Tomelden hurled insulting remarks at petitioner. Reacting, petitioner asked why Tomelden,
when drunk, has the penchant of insulting petitioner.

The exchange of words led to an exchange of blows. Cooler heads succeeded in breaking up the
fight, but only for a brief moment as the protagonists refused to be pacified and continued throwing
fist blows at each other. Then petitioner delivered a "lucky punch," as described by eyewitness Orje
Salazar, on Tomeldens face, which made Tomelden topple down. Tomelden was on the verge of
hitting his head on the ground had their companions not caught him and prevented the fall. The
blow, however, caused Tomeldens nose to bleed and rendered him unconscious.
Petitioner and his other co-workers brought Tomelden to the office of the LIWAD general manager
where he spent the night. He remained in the compound the following day, September 29, 1993.
Upon arriving home at around 6:00 p.m. of that day, Tomelden informed his wife, Rosario, of the
fight the previous night and of his having been rendered unconscious. He complained of pain in his
nape, head, and ear which impelled Rosario to immediately bring him to the Lingayen Community
Hospital where Dr. Daisy Arellano examined him and treated his lacerated left index finger,
contusions, and hematoma at the right cerebrum.

On October 2 and 7, 1993, Tomelden went back to the hospital complaining of dizziness, headache,
and other pains. The attending doctors observed the patient to be in a state of drowsiness and
frequent vomiting. On October 8, 1993, Rosario brought Tomelden to the Sison Memorial Provincial
Hospital in Dagupan City, where the attending physician, Dr. Ramon Ramos, diagnosed Tomelden
suffering from "brain injury, secondary to mauling to consider cerebral hemorrhage."3

Tomelden was confined in the provincial hospital until 3:00 p.m. of October 10, 1993, and, due to
financial constraints, was thereafter discharged despite signs negating physical condition
improvement. Upon reaching their house, however, Tomelden again complained of extreme head
pain, prompting his wife to bring him back to the Lingayen Community Hospital where Dr. Arellano
again attended to him. This time, things turned for the worst, the doctor noting that Tomelden
appeared to be semi-conscious, sleepy, uncooperative, and not responding to any stimulant.
Tomelden died at 9:00 p.m. of that day due, per Dr. Arellano, to "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary
to cerebral concussion with resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident."

The defense presented petitioner who denied having any intention to kill, asserting that
hypertension, for which Tomelden was receiving treatment, was the cause of the latters death.

Mitigating Circumstances Present

Petitioner next contends that the mitigating circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong and sufficient provocation on the part of the victim ought to be appreciated in petitioners
favor.

5. Vindication of a wrong
People vs Benito