G.R. No. L-29802 - Perez vs. Perez

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29802)

Petitioner and Respondent

The People prosecuted Nicolas and Avelina Jaurigue for murder. The trial court acquitted Nicolas and convicted Avelina of homicide. Avelina appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon.

Key Dates

Criminal incidents and related events: September 13, 15 and 20, 1942 (events leading to and including the fatal stabbing).
Appellant’s brief filed in the Court of Appeals: June 10, 1944.
Decision of the Supreme Court: February 21, 1946.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable constitution: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (governing law at the time of the decision).
Criminal law framework invoked: Revised Penal Code (the Court applied Article 69 regarding reduction of penalty by degrees).
Sentencing regime invoked: Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law).
Principles referenced: legitimate defense (including defense of honor for women), mitigating and aggravating circumstances, surrender to authorities, indemnity and accessory penalties, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Facts — Background Incidents

For some time prior to September 1942, Amado Capina repeatedly sought Avelina’s favors and engaged in sexually offensive conduct: snatching a handkerchief with her nickname, making unwelcome embraces, kissing and touching her breasts (September incident), and, on September 15, 1942, clandestinely entering her bedroom at night and feeling her forehead. After the bedroom incident Avelina armed herself with a fan knife for self-protection. She received reports that Amado boasted publicly of having taken liberties with her and that he had solicited her to elope and threatened self-harm.

Facts — The Chapel Incident and Immediate Aftermath

On the evening of September 20, 1942, at about 8:00 p.m., Avelina and her father attended services at the barrio chapel, which was well lighted and occupied by roughly ten persons including local officials. Amado sat nearby, moved to sit beside Avelina, and placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh without consent. Avelina drew the fan knife she carried to punish the offending touch; Amado seized her hand, and she stabbed him once at the base of the left side of the neck, producing a fatal wound. She immediately surrendered verbally to the barrio lieutenant, handed over the knife to police later that night, and gave written statements describing the events.

Issues Presented on Appeal

Whether Avelina acted in legitimate defense of her honor and should be completely absolved of criminal responsibility.
Whether additional mitigating circumstances applied: (a) lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, and (b) voluntary surrender to authorities.
Whether the trial court erred in treating the killing as aggravated by having been committed in a sacred place (chapel).

Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court held that:

Avelina did not act in such circumstances as to be completely exempt from criminal liability under the doctrine of legitimate defense of honor because the chapel was lighted and occupied by others, precluding a reasonable belief that she faced imminent danger of rape. The means employed (a single stab to the neck) were excessive under those circumstances.
The Court nevertheless recognized several mitigating circumstances: immediate voluntary surrender, action in the immediate vindication of a grave offense producing passion and temporary loss of self-control, and the apparent lack of intent to kill (as evidenced by a single wound).
The aggravating circumstance that the crime occurred in a place dedicated to worship was not supported, because there was no evidence of malice or premeditated murder when she entered the chapel.
Accordingly, the Court reduced the offense classification and imposed a mitigated sentence.

Legal Reasoning — Legitimate Defense and Honor

The Court acknowledged that, under existing jurisprudence, a woman may invoke legitimate defense of honor when actually threatened with rape or when no other reasonable means of protection exist; prior cases allowed exculpation where imminent danger of sexual assault was present. However, the Court emphasized that legitimate defense must be proportionate to the danger and that where actual risk of rape was absent—e.g., in a well-lighted, populated chapel—the use of deadly force was excessive and did not fully justify acquittal. The Court applied prior authorities cited in the record to delineate the border between full exculpation and partial mitigation.

Legal Reasoning — Mitigating Circumstances and Surrender

The Court treated voluntary and immediate surrender to the barrio lieutenant and to police, combined with the immediate emotional provocation produced by Amado’s prior conduct and his conduct moments before the stabbing, as mitigating circumstances of a qualified character. The single-wound evidence was also treated as indicative of lack of intent to kill, providing further mitigation. Under Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the presence of mitigating circumstances justified reduction of the penalty by one or two degrees.

Rejection of Aggravating Circumstance

The trial court’s finding of an aggravating circumstance based on commission of the killing in a sacred place was reversed. The Supreme Court required evidence of intent or particular culpability tied to the selection of the place of worship; absence of proof that Avelina intended murder upon entering the chapel compelled rejection of that aggravation.

Sentencing and Disposition

Applying Article 69 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103), the Court reduced the penalty by two degrees from reclusion temporal to pr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29802)

Procedural History

Trial commenced in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas where both Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted for the crime of murder.
The trial court acquitted Nicolas Jaurigue and found Avelina Jaurigue guilty, imposing an indeterminate penalty ranging from seven years, four months and one day of prision mayor to thirteen years, nine months and eleven days of reclusion temporal, with accessory penalties, an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and an order to pay one-half of the costs; the trial court also credited Avelina with one-half of the period of preventive imprisonment she had suffered.
Avelina appealed to the Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon and in her brief filed June 10, 1944, raised three principal claims of error: (1) that she acted in legitimate defense of her honor and should be absolved of criminal responsibility; (2) that additional mitigating circumstances existed in her favor, specifically lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and voluntary surrender to authorities; and (3) that the trial court erred in treating the killing as attended by the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in a sacred place.
The Supreme Court, through Justice De Joya, considered the case on the merits and rendered the decision summarized herein; Justices Ozaete, Perfecto, and Bengzon concurred. Justice Hilado filed a separate concurring note explaining his participation on the merits.

Facts Established at Trial

Both defendants and the deceased lived in the barrio of Sta. Isabel, city of San Pablo, province of Laguna.
For some time prior to the fatal stabbing, Amado Capina had been courting Avelina in vain and had engaged in improper conduct toward her, including an occasion about one month earlier when he snatched a handkerchief bearing her nickname “Aveling” while it was being washed by her cousin Josefa Tapay.
On September 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a dog under her house, Amado approached, expressed love which she refused, then suddenly embraced, kissed her, and touched her breasts; Avelina slapped, struck and kicked him and told no one until the following morning when she informed her mother.
Following the September 13 incident, Avelina carried a long fan knife for self-protection whenever she went out.
On the night of September 15, 1942, Amado climbed into Avelina’s house, entered her room surreptitiously, and felt her forehead in a manner indicating an intention to abuse her; Avelina screamed, waking her parents. Amado emerged from hiding, kissed Nicolas Jaurigue’s hand, and Amado’s parents later apologized to Nicolas when summoned.
On September 20, 1942, Avelina received information that Amado had been boasting falsely about having taken liberties with her, that he had said she had asked him to elope and threaten to take poison if he did not marry her; she received additional information of his boasting at about 5:00 p.m. that day.
At about 8:00 p.m. on September 20, 1942, Nicolas attended religious services at the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists; Avelina entered shortly after and sat near the door on a bench, while Amado was seated on the other side of the chapel.
Amado went to the bench where Avelina sat, sat at her right side, and without speaking placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh.
Avelina pulled from a pocket of her dress a fan knife marked Exhibit B intending to punish the offending hand; Amado seized her right hand, she quickly used her left hand to grasp the knife and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, inflicting a wound about (4 1/2) inches deep, which was necessarily mortal.
Nicolas saw Amado bleeding and staggering toward the altar and asked Avelina why she did it; she answered, “Father, I could not endure anymore.”
Barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada approached; Avelina surrendered, saying “Kayo na po ang bahala sa aquin,” translated in the record as “I hope you will take care of me,” or more precisely, “I place myself at your disposal.”
Acting on the barrio lieutenant’s advice, father and daughter went home, locked themselves in, and awaited municipal authorities. At about 10:00 p.m. three policemen arrived; Avelina surrendered the knife (Exhibit B), briefly recounted the events and preceding conduct of the deceased, and accompanied the policemen to police headquarters where her written statements were taken and later offered in evidence.

Trial Court Findings and Original Sentence

The trial court found Avelina guilty and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty stated as ranging from seven years, four months and one day of prision mayor to thirteen years, nine months and eleven days of reclusion temporal, imposed accessory penalties as provided by law, ordered indemnity to the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, and directed payment of one-half of the costs.
The trial court credited Avelina with one-half of the period of preventive imprisonment she had suffered.

Assignments of Error on Appeal

The appellant’s brief raised three principal assignments:
- That the lower court erred in not holding that she acted in legitimate defense of her honor and should be absolved of criminal responsibility.
- That the lower court erred in not finding additional mitigating circumstances in her favor, specifically (a) lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and (b) voluntary surrender to agents of the authorities.
- That the trial court erred in finding the killing to have been committed in a sacred place, an aggravating circumstance.

Legal Principles: Defense of Honor and Relevant Authorities

The decision recounts and applies established jurisprudence and doctrinal statements regarding a woman’s right to defend her
...continue reading