[No. L-3246. November 29, 1950] APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and Palacio, J.

appellee, vs. ABELARDO FORMIGONES, defendant and appellant. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
659
1. 1.CRIMINAL LAW; PARRICIDE; IMBECILITY AS EXEMPTING VOL. 87, NOVEMBER 29, 1950 659
CIRCUMSTANCE; REQUISITES.—In order that a person could People vs. Formigones
be regarded as an imbecile within the meaning of article 12 of the Luis Contreras f or appellant.
Revised Penal Code so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Felix V.
must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and Makasiar for appellee.
freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.
MONTEMAYOR, J.
1. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy and
take violent measures to the extent of killing his wife whom he This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that in doing so Camarines Sur finding the appellant guilty of parricide and sentencing
he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be regarded as an him to reclusión perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the
imbecile. amount of P2,000, and to pay the costs. The f ollowing f acts are not
disputed.
1. 3.ID. ; ID. ; FEEBLEMINDEDNESS AND ACT IN A FIT OF In the month of November, 1946, the defendant Abelardo Formigones
JEALOUSY AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.— was living on his farm in Bahao, Libmanan, municipality of Sipocot,
Feeblemindedness of the accused warrants the finding in his Camarines Sur, with his wif e, Julia Agricola, and his five children. From
favor of the mitigating circumstance provided for in either there they went to live in the house of his half-brother, Zacarias
paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of article 13 of the Revised Penal Formigones, in the barrio of Binahian of the same municipality of Sipocot,
Code and the fact that the accused evidently killed his wife in a to find employment as harvesters of palay. After about a month's stay or
fit of jealousy, he is, likewise, entitled to the mitigating rather on December 28, 1946, late in the afternoon, Julia Agricola was
circumstance in paragraph 6 of the same article—that of having sitting at the head of the stairs of the house. The accused, without any
acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of
passion or obfuscation. the house and stabbed his wife, Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating
the right lung and causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death not
1. 4.ID.; ID.; PENALTY.—The penalty applicable for parricide under long thereafter. The blow sent Julia toppling down the stairs to the ground,
article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is composed only of two immediately followed by her husband Abelardo who, taking her up in his
indivisible penalties, to wit, reclusión perpetua to death. Altho the arms, carried her up the house, laid her on the floor of the living room and
commission of the act is attended by some mitigating then lay down beside her. In this position he was found by the people who
circumstance without any aggravating circumstance to offset came in response to the shouts for help made by his eldest daughter, Irene
them, article 63 of the said code is the one applicable and must be Formigones, who witnessed and testified to the stabbing of her mother by
applied. her father.
Investigated by the Constabulary, defendant Abelardo signed a written
statement, Exhibit D, wherein he admitted that he killed his wife. The
1. 5.ID.; ID.; ATTENTION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE INVITED
motive was admittedly that of jealousy because according to his statement
TO THE CASE.—When the court believes that the appellant is
he used to have quarrels with his wife for the reason that he often
entitled to a lighter penalty the case should be brought to the
660
attention of the Chief Executive who, in his discretion may reduce
the penalty to that next lower to reclusión perpetua to death or 660 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
otherwise apply executive clemency in the manner he sees fit. People vs. Formigones
1
saw her in the company of his brother Zacarias; that he suspected that the freedom of the will For this reason, it was held that the imbecility or
two were maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his wife had insanity at the time of the commission of the act should absolutely deprive
become indifferent to him (defendant). a person of intelligence or f reedom of will, because mere abnormality
During the preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability.19
peace of Sipocot, the accused pleaded guilty, as shown by Exhibit E. At the "The Supreme Court of Spain likewise held that deaf-muteness cannot
trial of the case in the Court of First Instance, the def endant entered a be equalled to imbecility or insanity.
plea of not guilty, but did not testify. His counsel presented the testimony "The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved. without
of two guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was confined to the positive evidence that the defendant had previously lost his reason or was
effect that his conduct there was rather strange and that he behaved like demented, a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime,
an insane person; that sometimes he would remove his clothes and go stark it will be presumed that he was in a normal condition. Acts penalized by
naked in the presence of his fellow prisoners; that at times he would remain law are always reputed to be volun-tary, and it is improper to conclude that
silent and indifferent to his surroundings; that he would refuse to take a a person acted unconsciuosly, in order to relieve him from liability, on the
bath and wash his clothes until forced by the prison authorities; and that basis of his mental condition, unless his insanity and absence of will are
sometimes he would sing in chorus with his fellow prisoners, or even alone proved."
by himself without being asked; and that once when the door of his cell was As to the strange behaviour of the accused during his confinement,
opened, he suddenly darted from Inside into the prison compound assuming that it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed
apparently in an attempt to regain his liberty. either to his being- feebleminded or eccentric. or to a morbid mental
The appeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is an condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. From the case
imbecile and therefore exempt from criminal liability under article 12 of of United States vs. Vaquilar (27 Phil., 88), we quote the following
the Revised Penal Code. The trial court rejected this same theory and we syllabus-
are inclined to agree with the lower court. According to the very witness of "Testimony of eye-witnesses to a parricide, which goes 110 further than to
the defendant, Dr. Francisco Gomez, who examined him, it was his opinion indicate that the accused was moved by a wayward or hyste
that Abelardo was suffering only f rom f eeblemindedness and not _______________
imbecility and that he could distinguish right from wrong.
In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile within the 18 Decision of Supreme Court of Spain of November 21, 1891; 47 Jur.

meaning of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code so as to be exempt from Crim., 413.
criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment 19 Decision of Supreme Court of Spain of April 20. 1911; 86 Jur.

and freedom of the will at the.time of committing the crime. The provisions Crim., 94, 97.
of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code are copied 662
661 662 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 87, NOVEMBER 29, 1950 661 People vs. Formigones
People vs. Formigones ical burst of anger or passion, and other testimony to the effect that, while
from and based on paragraph 1, article 8, of the old Penal Code of Spain. in confinement awaiting trial, defendant acted absentmindedly at times, is
Consequently, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting not sufficient to establish the defense of insanity. The conduct of the
and applying said provisions are pertinent and applicable. We quote Judge defendant while in confinement appears to have been due to a morbid
Guillermo Guevara on his Commentaries on. the Revised Penal Code, 4th mental condition produced by remorse."
Edition, pages 42 to 48 After a careful study of the record, we are convinced that the appellant is
"The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that this exempting not an imbecile. According to the evidence, during his marriage of about 16
circumstance may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a years, he has not done anything or conducted himself in anyway so as to
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing 'the act, that is, that the warrant an opinion that he was or is an imbecile. He regularly and
accused be deprived of reason; that there be no responsibility for his own dutifully cultivated his farm, raised five children, and supported his family
acts; that he acts without the least discernment; 18 that there be a complete and even maintained in school his children of school age, with the fruits of
absence of the power to discern, or that there be a total deprivation of his work. Occasionally, as a side line he made copra. And a man who could
2
feel the pangs of jealousy and take violent measures to the extent of killing beings," or such illness "as would diminish the exercise of his will power."
his wif e whom he suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that To this we may add the mitigating circumstance in paragraph 6 of the same
in doing so he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be regarded as an article,—that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
imbecile. Whether or not his suspicions were justified, is of little or no have produced passion or obfuscation. The accused evidently killed his wife
import. The f act is that he believed her f aithless. in a fit of jealousy.
But to show that his feeling of jealousy had some color of justification With the presence of two mitigating circumstances without any
and was not a mere product of hallucination and aberrations of a aggravating circumstance to offset them, at first we thought of the possible
disordered mind as that an imbecile or a lunatic, there is evidence to the applicability of the provisions
following effect. In addition to the observations made by appellant in his 664
written statement Exhibit D, it is said that when he and his wife first went 664 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
to live in the house of his half brother, Zacarias Formigones, the latter was
People vs. Formigones
living with his grandmother, and his house was vacant. However, after the
of article 64, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code for the purpose of
family of Abelardo was settled in the house, Zacarias not only frequented
imposing the penalty next lower to that prescribed by article 246 for
said house but also used to sleep there nights. All this may have aroused
parricide, which is reclusión perpetua to death. It will be observed however,
and even partly confirmed the suspicions of Abelardo, at least to his way of
that article 64 refers to the application of penalties which contain three
thinking.
periods whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three
The appellant has all the sympathies of the Court. He seems to be one
different penalties, each one of which f orms a period in accordance with
of those unfortunate beings, simple and
the provisions of articles 76 and 77, which is not true in the present case
663
where the penalty applicable for parricide is composed only of two
VOL. 87, NOVEMBER 29, 1950 663 indivisible penalties. On the other hand, article 63 of the same Code refers
People vs. Formigones to the application of indivisible penalties whether it be a single divisible
even f eebleminded, whose f aculties have not been f ully developed. His penalty, or two indivisible penalties like that of reclusión perpetua, to
action in picking up the body of his wife after she fell down to the ground, death. It is therefore clear that article 63 is the one applicable in the
dead, taking her upstairs, laying her on the floor, and lying beside her for present case.
hours, shows his feeling of remorse at having killed his loved one though Paragraph 2, rule 3 of said article 63 provides that when the
he thought that she had betrayed him. Al though he did not exactly commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and
surrender to the authorities, still he made no effort to flee and compel the there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
police to hunt him down and arrest him. In his written statement he Interpreting a similar legal provision the Supreme Court in the case
readily admitted that he killed his wife, and at the trial he made no effort of United States vs. Guevara (10 Phil. 37), involving the crime of parricide,
to deny or repudiate said written statement, thus saving the government in applying article 80, paragraph 2 (rule 3 of the old Penal Code) which
all the trouble and expense of catching him, and insuring his conviction. corresponds to article 63, paragraph 2 (rule 3 of the present Revised Penal
Although the deceased was struck in the back, we are not prepared to Code), thru Chief Justice Arellano said the following:
find that the aggravating circumstance of treachery attended the "And even though this court should take into consideration the presence of
commission of the crime. It seems that the prosecution was not intent on two mitigating circumstances of a qualifying nature, which it can not afford
proving it. At least said aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the to overlook, without any aggravating one, the penalty could not be reduced
complaint either in the justice of the peace court or in the Court of First to the next lower to that imposed by law, because, according to a ruling of
Instance. We are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and we the court of Spain, article 80 above-mentioned does not contain a precept
therefore decline to find the existence of this aggravating circumstance. On similar to that contained in Rule 5 of article 81 (now Rule 5, art. 64 of the
the other hand, the fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants the Rev. Penal Code). (Decision of September 30, 1879.)
finding in his f avor of the mitigating circumstance provided for in either "Yet, in view of the excessive penalty imposed, the strict application of
paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, which is inevitable and which, under the law, must be sustained, this court
namely, that the accused is "suffering some physical defect which thus now resorts to the discretional power conferred by paragraph 2 of article 2
restricts his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow of the Penal Code; and
3
 "Therefore, we affirm the judgment appealed from with costs, and © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
hereby order that a proper petition be filed with the executive
665
VOL. 87, NOVEMBER 29, 1950 665
People vs. Formigones
branch of the Government in order that the latter, if it be deemed proper
in the exercise of the prerogative vested in it by the sovereign power, may
reduce the penalty to that of the next lower."
Then, in the case of People vs. Castañeda (60 Phil. 604), another parricide
case, the Supreme Court in affirming the judgment of conviction
sentencing defendant to reclusión perpetua, said that notwithstanding the
numerous mitigating circumstances found to exist, inasmuch as the
penalty for parricide as fixed by article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is
composed of two indivisible penalties, namely, reclusión perpetua, to death,
paragraph 3 of article 63 of the said Code must be applied. The Court
further observed:
"We are likewise convinced that appellant did not have that malice nor has
exhibited such moral turpitude as requires life imprisonment, and
therefore under the provisions of article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, we
respectfully invite the attention of the Chief Executive to the case with a
view to executive clemency after appellant has served an appreciable
amount of confinement."
In conclusion, we find the appellant guilty of parricide and we hereby
affirm the judgment of the lower court with the modification that the
appellant will be credited with one-half of any preventive imprisonment he
has undergone. Appellant will pay costs.
Following the attitude adopted and the action taken by this same court
in the two cases above cited, and believing that the appellant is entitled to
a lighter penalty, this case should be brought to the attention of the Chief
Executive who, in his discretion may reduce the penalty to that next lower
to reclusión perpetua to death or otherwise apply executive clemency in the
manner he sees fit.
Moran, C. J., Parás, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, and Jugo,
JJ., concur.

PADILLA, J.:

I concur in the result.

Judgment modified.
666
666 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Son vs. Republic of the Philippines
4