Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47941)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon, G.R. No. L-47941, April 30, 1985, Supreme Court First Division, Alampay, J., writing for the Court.The respondent in the criminal prosecution was Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon (defendant-appellant); the prosecution was The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee). Several months before the killing, the accused's wife, Magdalena de los Santos, persistently asked that their conjugal home in Sitio Dinalungan, Barangay Cabugao, Siruma, Camarines Sur, be sold so the family could move to the in‑laws’ house in Tinambac; the accused refused because he preferred to keep the land he was farming.
On June 23, 1977, the accused left to work and returned about nine in the morning to find his wife carrying their three‑month‑old; she refused to return home with the child, and in attempting to take the infant the wife threw the child to the ground, causing it to cry. The accused, in a fit of rage, picked up a nearby piece of wood and struck his wife repeatedly until she fell and complained of severe chest pain; he then carried her home and later brought the infant back, but the wife died despite his efforts. The accused reported the incident to the barangay captain, surrendered to Policeman Arellosa, and produced the piece of wood used in the assault.
At arraignment on November 24, 1977, the accused pled not guilty, but at trial on December 13, 1977, after conferring with counsel, he sought to withdraw that plea and pled guilty; the trial court allowed the change of plea, received mitigating circumstances presented by defense, and found the accused guilty of parricide. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch IV (trial court) rendered judgment on December 22, 1977, convicting him and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity of P12,000; the trial court also recommended executive clemency after service of the minimum of the medium period of prision mayor.
The accused filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied, and thereafter filed a notice of appeal to this Court challenging primarily the correctness of the penalty imposed. On appeal the accused argued that (1) the trial court disregarded findings showing lack of intent to kill; (2) Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code should have governed because a different and less serious felony was intended; (3) the mandatory sequence for d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code apply so that the penalty for the felony actually committed (parricide) should be substituted by the maximum period of the penalty corresponding to the felony the accused intended to commit?
- Is the accused entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law?
- Was the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the mitigating circumstances found by t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)