Case Digest (G.R. No. 130654)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 130654)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc, Romero, J., writing for the Court. The case comes to the Court on automatic review of a conviction in Criminal Case No. A-3155.The Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32 (Presiding Judge Leo M. Rapatalo) rendered a Decision dated April 15, 1997, finding accused-appellant Eduardo Javier guilty of parricide and sentencing him to death, and ordering payment of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P21,730.00 as actual expenses. The Information charged that on June 15, 1996 Javier, armed with a bolo, attacked and fatally wounded his wife, Florentina Javier y Laceste.
At trial the prosecution presented the testimony of the victims’ daughters (Consolacion Javier Panit and Alma Javier) and SPO1 Rotelio Pacho. The daughters recounted hearing the victim scream that her husband would kill her; they found the victim dead in the bedroom and the accused wounded in the abdomen; one son, Manuel, informed police that the accused had confessed and surrendered a blood-covered bolo. Medical findings showed multiple injuries and that the victim’s neck was nearly severed.
Accused-appellant testified and admitted killing his wife with the bolo (identifying it as Exhibit “A”) and also admitted attempting to wound himself thereafter. He claimed he had been suffering from prolonged insomnia for about a month and that his mind “went totally blank” at the time, asserting insanity/illness as an exempting or mitigating ground. No medical records or psychiatric expert testimony were offered to support this claim.
The trial court rejected the insanity defense for lack of proof and convicted. On appeal to the Supreme Court (automatic review), the accused argued only that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty because two mitigating circumstances—illness of the offender and passion and obfuscation—existed; he did not challenge the trial court’s rejection of insanity at length. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed, stressing absence of medical proof and inadequate showing of passion and obfuscation.
Issues:
- Did accused-appellant prove the mitigating circumstance of illness that would diminish his criminal liability?
- Did accused-appellant prove the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation?
- In the absence of proven aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is the death penalty proper, or should the penalty be reduced?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)