G.R. No. 38773 - People vs. Alburquerque y Sanchez

The case involves the People of the Philippine Islands as the plaintiff and Gines Alburquerque y Sanchez as the defendant.
The defendant is a widower aged fifty-five with nine children, suffering from partial paralysis, which significantly impaired his ability to control his right arm and forced him to walk with a dragging leg.
For some time, the defendant had been dependent upon his daughter Maria, with whom he and most of his other children resided.

Among the children, several daughters were married, and one became a nun; however, the majority of the daughters (including at least one named Pilar) and their father lived with Maria.
Pilar's intimate relationship with Manuel Osma, which began around the end of 1928, is central to the facts.
Pilar’s liaison with Osma resulted in the birth of a child, a fact unknown to her father until after the delivery, causing significant familial dishonor and additional economic burden on Maria.

The defendant, affected by both the dishonor caused by his daughter’s relationship and the resulting economic pressures, had written several letters to Osma.

The letters alternated between hostile threats and entreaties, urging Osma to legitimize the relationship with Pilar either through marriage or by providing support for her and the child.
Though Osma agreed verbally to provide a monthly allowance, he failed to comply with the promise.

On one occasion, while in a state of agitation, the defendant visited Osma’s office and requested to speak with him, leading both to go downstairs together.
During the ensuing altercation, the defendant, while proposing marriage to Osma on behalf of his daughter, whirled out his penknife when Osma refused his proposal.

The defendant’s physical incapacities (lack of full control of his right arm) played a critical role in the outcome of the conflict.
Although his intention was to inflict a wound on the face that would result in either a permanent scar or compel Osma to remain hospitalized temporarily, the blow inadvertently landed at the base of Osma’s neck, causing his death.

The trial court established that the fatal outcome was not a reflection of an intention to kill, but rather an unintended consequence of the defendant’s physical impairment and the circumstances of the altercation.

Evidence, including testimonies and the defendant’s own letters, revealed his intent was limited to non-fatal injury to compel Osma into a commitment regarding Pilar.
The mitigating factors included:

The defendant’s argument of legitimate self-defense was rejected, as he himself instigated the aggression by drawing and brandishing his penknife.

The factual matrix led the trial court to determine that the act constituted homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
In consideration of the mitigating circumstances and in the absence of any aggravating factors, the court opted for the imposition of the penalty of prision mayor instead of a harsher sentence.

Did the defendant truly intend only to inflict a non-fatal injury (i.e., a wound that would scar or temporarily disable) rather than cause death?
To what extent did the defendant’s physical condition affect the execution of his intended act?

Whether the doctrine enshrined in Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code (pertaining to instances when the crime committed is different from that intended) applies, given that in this case the victim (Manuel Osma) was indeed the intended target.
Can the defendant’s claim of legitimate self-defense be sustained in light of his role as the aggressor?

How should the mitigating factors—lack of intent to kill, physical incapacity, voluntary surrender, and passion—affect the determination of criminal liability and the corresponding sentence?
Is the imposition of prision mayor, with a range from one year of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, appropriate under the circumstances?