Title
People vs. Lasafin
Case
G.R. No. L-5874
Decision Date
Feb 11, 1953
Policeman Deogracias Lasafin is convicted of homicide for premeditatedly killing his romantic rival, Miguel Tabucan, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with voluntary surrender as a mitigating factor.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5874)

Facts:

  • Deogracias Lasafin, a policeman from Lambunao, was accused of murder in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
  • He was courting Aurea Carado, who had not made a clear decision regarding his advances.
  • On September 11, 1949, Aurea informed Deogracias of her intention to marry Miguel Tabucan.
  • In a jealous rage, Deogracias expressed a desire to see both Aurea and Miguel dead rather than married.
  • On September 13, 1949, Aurea went to warn Miguel about Deogracias's threats but found him absent.
  • While leaving, she encountered Deogracias, who was approaching Miguel's location.
  • Witness Angelina Lavente observed Deogracias calling out to Miguel, threatening him, and firing ten shots, hitting Miguel seven times.
  • After shooting, Deogracias kicked Miguel and struck him with the butt of his carbine, also threatening Aurea.
  • Deogracias claimed self-defense, alleging an unknown person tried to wrestle his carbine from him.
  • The trial court found his self-defense claim unconvincing and convicted him of homicide, considering the mitigating circumstance of surrender.
  • He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prison mayor to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, along with a P4,000 indemnity to the victim's heirs.
  • Deogracias appealed the decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that Deogracias Lasafin was guilty of homicide rather than murder.
  • The court affirmed the trial court's application of the mitigating circumstance of surrender.
  • The penalty was modifie...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court found that the evidence established the elements of homicide, not murder, as the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was present.
  • Deogracias had threatened Miguel days before the incident, indicating a clear intent to commit the crime.
  • The act was deemed premeditated, as Deogracias had time to reflect on his actions.
  • The self-defense claim was rejected due to a lack of credible evidence...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.