Title
People vs Guevara
Case
G.R. No. L-4153
Decision Date
Jan 25, 1908
Pablo Guevara convicted of parricide for killing his wife; self-defense claim rejected, life imprisonment affirmed, but penalty reduction recommended due to mitigating circumstances.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4153)

Legal Context and Charges

  • The accused, Pablo Guevara, was convicted of killing his lawful wife.
  • He was sentenced to life imprisonment, along with accessory penalties as prescribed by Article 54 of the Penal Code.
  • The court ordered Guevara to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000 and to cover burial costs.
  • The prosecution's case was substantiated by confessions made by Guevara both before and during the trial.

Defense and Court Considerations

  • During the trial, Guevara attempted to assert a defense of self-defense, recounting the events leading to the crime.
  • The lower court did not consider this self-defense argument, and consequently, the appellate court also refrained from addressing it.
  • The court noted that the confessions provided a clearer understanding of the circumstances that led to the crime, including the emotional turmoil experienced by Guevara.

Provocation and Circumstances of the Crime

  • The deceased had been convicted of adultery and had lived an unchaste life, which contributed to the provocation of Guevara.
  • The deceased attempted to take custody of their only daughter by filing a complaint against Guevara, which further incited his anger.
  • The court found that the actions of the deceased constituted immediate provocation, leading to Guevara's decision to seek revenge.

Application of the Penal Code

  • The penalty imposed aligns with Article 402 of the Penal Code, which prescribes life imprisonment for parricide, including the killing of a spouse.
  • Article 80, paragraph 2, states that in cases with two indivisible penalties (life imprisonment and death), if there are mitigating circumstances without aggravating ones, the lesser penalty should apply.
  • Despite the presence of two qualifying mitigating circumstances, the court ruled that the penalty could not be reduced to a lesser one due to the specific provisions of the law.

Discretionary Power and Final Judgment

  • The court acknowledged the strict application of the...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.