People vs. Pagal
G.R. NO. L-32040
October 25, 1977
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
plaintiff-appellee
Ponente: CONCEPCION
PEDRO PAGAL and JOSE TORCELINO
defendants-appellant
Clue: Icepick | Robbery with Homicide |
DOCTRINE/S:
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: VOLUNTARY SURRENDER and VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence
for the prosecution
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. They stole
the amount of P1,281.00 and killed a certain Gau Guan by stabbing him with an ice pick and
clubbing him with an iron pipe.
In their arraignment, the counsel for the accused informed the court of their intention to plead guilty,
provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient
provocation on the part of the victim immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon
an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.
The judge asked if that is truly what the accused wanted to do, and the accused agreed. The
accused were arraigned and both pleaded guilty. The accused were then allowed to present their
evidence, which were claims of maltreatment/ill-treatment by the deceased. After they rested their
case, the prosecution presented the statements of the accused and other evidence.
After considering the aggravating circumstances, and accepting only the mitigating circumstance of
plea of guilt, the court rendered its decision finding both accused GUILTY, and sentenced to death.
The case was elevated to the SC for mandatory review onaccount of the death penalty imposed
CRIME CHARGED: Robbery with Homicide
RTC/MTC DECISION: Guilty of Robbery with Homicide | Death Penalty
CA DECISION: N/A, Direct review of SC because of Death Penalty
MGC | UST-FCL
ISSUE: WON the appellants can invoke the mitigating circumstances of Sufficient Provocation and
Passion or Obfuscation.
HELD:
No. Firstly, since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from
the same incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill treatment of the appellants by the
deceased, these two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and separate
circumstances but should be treated as one.
Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which in this
particular case, is planned and calmly meditated before its execution. This is in line with People vs.
Daos that is also a case of robbery with homicide. The SC rejected the claim of the appellants
therein that passion and obfuscation should have been estimated in their favor, because the death
of the victim therein took place on the occasion of a robbery, which, before its execution, had been
planned and calmly meditated by the appellants.
Thirdly, the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against them occurred
much earlier than the date of the commission of the crime. Provocation in order to be a
mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act.
Added Note:
They were favored the mitigating circumstance on their plea of guilt. That’s why the sentence is now
Reclusion Perpetua instead of death.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the trial court is modified, and the appellants Pedro Pagal y
Marcelino and Jose Torcelino y Torazo are hereby sentenced to suffer each the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. With costs
against the appellants.
Notes:
Modified Penalty to Reclusion Perpetua
MGC | UST-FCL