People vs. Javier

In parricide punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the absence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances mandates the imposition of the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. The mitigating circumstance of illness (Art. 13, par. 9) requires proof that the illness diminished the exercise of willpower without depriving the offender of consciousness of his acts, and such proof must ordinarily include medical evidence; bare testimonial assertions of a “blank mind” are insufficient. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation requires an unlawful act sufficient to produce the condition of mind, and that act must not be far removed in time from the commission of the crime.

Eduardo Javier and Florentina Laceste had been married for over forty-one years and resided with their daughter Alma in Tubod, Sto. Tomas, La Union. Preceding the killing, the accused claimed he had suffered from insomnia for nearly a month. On the early morning of June 15, 1996, a daughter living nearby heard Florentina screaming that her husband was about to kill her. Moments later, the victim was found dead in the bedroom, her neck almost severed, while the accused lay wounded in the abdomen from an apparent suicide attempt. He later admitted to the killing, contending that his mind went blank at the time. Charged with parricide, he raised insanity as an exempting circumstance during trial.

• Marriage and Family: Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier and Florentina Laceste were legally married on December 18, 1954, and had several children. At the time of the incident, they lived with their daughter Alma in Tubod, Sto. Tomas, La Union.
• The Incident of June 15, 1996: Between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., Consolacion Javier Panit, another daughter residing ten to fifteen meters away, heard her mother Florentina shout, “Arayatan dac ta papatayen nac ni Tatangyo” (Your father is going to kill me). Consolacion rushed out, met her weeping sister Alma, and together they fetched their brother Manuel. The three proceeded to their parents’ house.
• Discovery of the Victim and Accused: Manuel entered first and found Florentina lifeless in the bedroom, drenched in blood, her neck almost severed. Accused-appellant was found wounded in the abdomen. Manuel told his sisters that their mother was dead and that their father had confessed to killing his wife and thereafter stabbing himself. Consolacion’s husband and son transported the accused to the hospital.
• Police Investigation: SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, upon receiving a call from the barangay captain, went to the scene. He saw the victim’s body covered in blood. Manuel Javier told the police that his father confessed to the killing and surrendered the bloodied bolo found in the bedroom, which the accused later identified as the weapon used.
• Accused’s Admission and Insanity Defense: At trial, Eduardo Javier admitted killing his wife with the bolo and attempting suicide with the same weapon. He testified that he had been unable to sleep for almost a month, that his mind went completely blank during the incident, and that he did not know what he was doing. The defense never presented psychiatric or medical records to substantiate the claim of insanity.
• Trial Court’s Ruling: The RTC rejected the defense of insanity, finding that the accused’s detailed recollection of the killing, the suicide attempt, and his transport to the hospital showed he was in control of his mental faculties. The court sentenced him to death and awarded ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱21,730.00 as actual expenses.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Illness: Accused-appellant contended that his prolonged loss of sleep for around a month constituted an illness that diminished his willpower, causing him to commit the act without full control. He cited medical literature on the effects of sleep loss to support the claim.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Passion and Obfuscation: Accused-appellant argued that his suspicion that his wife was having an illicit relationship, aggravated by his illness, goaded him to commit the killing, entitling him to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

• Lack of Proof for Illness: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that no medical finding supported the alleged illness; bare testimony was insufficient to establish diminished willpower.
• Failure to Establish Passion and Obfuscation: The OSG maintained that accused-appellant failed to present any evidence of the cause that produced the alleged obfuscation, rendering the mitigating circumstance inapplicable.

• Illness: Whether the mitigating circumstance of illness under Article 13, paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code could be appreciated in the absence of medical proof.
• Passion and Obfuscation: Whether the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was properly invoked where the cause that produced the state of mind was not established.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty.

• Illness: The mitigating circumstance was not appreciated. To benefit from the circumstance of illness, the accused must prove that the illness diminished the exercise of willpower without depriving him of consciousness of his acts. Accused-appellant relied solely on his testimony of a “blank mind” from insomnia, but presented no medical finding or psychiatric evaluation. His clear recollection of hacking his wife twice, wounding himself, and being taken to the hospital demonstrated full awareness of his acts, negating any claim of diminished willpower.
• Passion and Obfuscation: The mitigating circumstance was not established. Passion and obfuscation require an unlawful act sufficient to produce the condition of mind, and the act must not be far removed in time from the commission of the crime. Accused-appellant did not prove any cause; he even testified that he was not jealous of his wife. The cause of the alleged obfuscation thus remained unsubstantiated.
• Proper Penalty: The penalty of death was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Parricide under Article 246, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is punishable by the two indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to death. Because the Information did not allege, and the prosecution did not prove, any aggravating circumstance, and because no mitigating circumstance was established, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was the correct imposable penalty. The trial court’s award of ₱50,000.00 was properly considered as civil indemnity rather than moral damages.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Illness (Art. 13, par. 9, Revised Penal Code) — The circumstance requires: (1) that the illness diminished the exercise of the offender’s willpower; and (2) that such illness did not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. Proof of illness generally demands medical evidence; the accused’s bare assertion is insufficient. In this case, the absence of medical proof and the accused’s detailed recollection of events negated the claim.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Passion and Obfuscation — For this circumstance to be appreciated, the following must concur: (1) an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) the act that caused the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity. Failure to prove the cause of the alleged passion or obfuscation is fatal to the claim.
• Penalty for Parricide under Republic Act No. 7659 — Parricide is not a capital crime per se because it is punishable by the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death — two indivisible penalties. When no aggravating circumstance is alleged or proven, and no mitigating circumstance is successfully established, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed.

• “For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.”
• “Since he remembered the vital circumstances surrounding the ghastly incident, from the time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital, it shows that he was in full control of his mental faculties. This negates his claim that he was suffering from an illness that diminished the exercise of his will-power.”
• “The crime of parricide, not being a capital crime per se as it is not punishable by mandatory death penalty but by the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, two indivisible penalties, the application of the lesser or the greater penalty depends on the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.”

• People v. Takbobo, 224 SCRA 134 (1993) — Cited for the elements of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
• People v. Benjamin Reyes, 292 SCRA 663 (1998) — Cited for the rule that, in parricide as amended by R.A. 7659, the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances calls for the imposition of the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Article 246, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes parricide with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The provision was applied in determining the proper penalty given the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• Article 13, paragraph 9, Revised Penal Code — Provides for illness as a mitigating circumstance when it diminishes the exercise of willpower without depriving the offender of consciousness. The requisites under this paragraph were not met.

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred. Davide, Jr., C.J., was on leave.