Title
People vs. Santos y Delgado
Case
G.R. No. 99259-60
Decision Date
Mar 29, 1996
A barangay tanod and his friend were attacked after mediating a dispute; appellant claimed self-defense and mitigating circumstances, but the Supreme Court upheld his conviction for murder and frustrated murder, rejecting his claims due to lack of evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 99259-60)

Conviction and Sentences

Emilio Santos was convicted of murder and frustrated murder by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLIX. For the murder of Valentino Guevarra, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages to Guevarra's heirs. For the frustrated murder of Francisco Lacsa, he received an indeterminate sentence and was similarly ordered to pay damages.

Errors Assigned by Appellant

The appellant does not contest the conviction itself but argues that the trial court erred in failing to recognize two mitigating circumstances in his favor: the immediate vindication of a grave offense against his father and the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution's case rested on testimony from Francisco Lacsa, who detailed the violent confrontation involving the appellant, his brother, and others. The prosecution established that the appellant brutally attacked Valentino, leading to his death, and that he inflicted severe injuries on Lacsa.

Appellant's Defense

The defense claimed self-defense and argued that the appellant acted to protect his father from an assault by Lacsa and Guevarra. However, the appellant's testimony revealed inconsistencies and reliance on hearsay to justify his actions as an immediate response to aggression against his father.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court found the prosecution's account credible and discarded the self-defense claim. It established that the elements of self-defense, especially unlawful aggression, were absent since the initial confrontation had ended by the time the appellant attacked Lacsa.

Mitigating Circumstances: Incomplete Defense of a Relative

To successfully argue incomplete defense of a relative, the appellant needed to demonstrate the existence of unlawful aggression. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's determination that there was a lack of proof of such aggression and therefore a failure to establish the claim.

Mitigating Circumstances: Immediate V

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.