LAW 109 Criminal Law 1 T,Th, 10-11:30 AM| Idelfonso Jimenez DETAILS Docket No. L-30801 Ponente Aquino, J Topic Mitigating Circumstances BGC DAY 2 2025 Page 1 of 3 Case Title People of the Philippines v. Domingo URAL Case Date March 27, 1974 Super Summary Accused Ural is a policeman who is on duty. He was seen by witness Alberio, boxing the detention prisoner Napola and thereafter igniting him on fire. Due to the injuries sustained by the victim, he eventually died. Accused was convicted with the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt. I: On appeal, the accused held that the trial court erred in holding him guilty of the crime of murder since the prosecution failed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. R: The court ruled that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused of the crime of murder on the basis of Art. 4 of the RPC. The crime done was due attached with aggravating circumstance by taking advantage in his position as a public official. The mitigating circumstance was appreciated by the Court as it was not his intention to actually kill the victim. Doctrine Article 13 Paragraph 3 provides that one of the mitigating circumstances is that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. FACTS 1. [Controversy] Alberio who arrived at the municipal building of Buug, Zamboanga del Sur, witnessed Policeman Ural inside the jail cell. Ural was seen to be boxing the detention prisoner, Felix Napola. As a consequence of the blows, Napola collapsed on the floor. 2. [Heated Controversy] Ural went out of the cell and returned with a bottle. He poured the contents of the bottle on Napola’s body and ignited it with a match and left the cell. Napola screamed in agony and shouted for help but nobody came to his aid. 3. [Controversy] Alberio left the municipal building and was warned by Ural to keep quiet about what the latter have done. 4. [Preliminary Investigation] In the preliminary investigation conducted, Mrs. Napola, the victim’s wife testified that her husband told her that Policeman Ural had burned him. However, Ural allowed her to bring Napola to the dispensary where he was treated. 5. [Joint Affidavit] Still on the Preliminary Investigation, Ernesto Ogoc and Juanito de la Cerna, who were confined at the place of the incident, executed a joint affidavit regarding the events that had transpired. In their Joint Affidavit they allege: a. Ural boxed Napola until he cannot stand anymore. Ural then got a bottle and poured the contents of the bottle to the clothes of Napola. b. Ural lit a match and burned the spot where the substance in the bottle was poured in the dress of Napola. Napola was eventually burned and asked for mercy from Ural. Ural instead locked the jail and threatened not to talk about the burning of Napola to anybody else. c. When Napola was suffering too much, Ural became frightened and eventually put out the fire 6. [Charge] A criminal case was filed against Ural in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del sur for the actions he had committed against the victim. 7. [Testimony] On trial, Alberio testified the events that has occurred in the night when he saw the incident (Nos. 1 to 3), which the trial court would have eventually based on their decision. 8. [Medical Examination] Dr. Bakil certified that the victim sustained second-degree burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face, and one-half of the body. She testified that if the burns were not properly treated, death would unsue from toxemia and tetanus infection. 9. [Death] Napola died on August 25, 1966 in which the sanitary inspector issued a certificate of death indicating “burn” as the cause of death. 10. [Defense] In the defense of the accused, he testified the following: a. He was the municipal on guard duty on the night of July 31, 1966. LAW 109 Criminal Law 1 T,Th, 10-11:30 AM| Idelfonso Jimenez BGC DAY 2 2025 Page 2 of 3 b. He heard a scream for help from Napola in which he found the latter’s shirt is in flames upon entering his cell. c. With the assistance of the people present, they removed Napola’s shirt. Ural did not summon a doctor because according to Napola, the burns were not serious. 11. [Testimonies] Escarael, Ogoc’s common law wife testified that she heard Napola’s scream for help and saw that his shirt was burning but she did not know how it happened to be burned. Matuga, a policeman declared that he was relieved as guard by Ural and denied that Alberio was in the municipal building. 12. [CFI Ruling] The trial court held that Ural is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The CFI held: a. Ural’s denials cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Alberio b. Ural’s alleged act of removing Napola’s burning shirt was an indication that he was belatedly alarmed by the consequence of his evil act, it would not mean however that he was not the incendiary. c. CFI bewailed the prosecution’s failure to present de la Serna and Ogoc as witnesses and that Mrs. Napola should have also been presented as witness to prove the victim’s dying declaration. 13. [Appeal] Ural filed for an appeal with the Supreme Court, assailing the decision of the CFI. Ural averred that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ISSUE W/N the trial court erred in relying on Alberio’s testimony RATIO No. The trial court correctly relied on the testimony of Alberio. There is no justification in disbelieving the testimony of Alberio The testimonies of Escarael and Matugas are compatible with the prosecution’s theory that Ural burned Napola’s shirt. The trial court had the advantage of seeing their demeanor and behavior on the witness stand. W/N the trial court erred in holding the accused guilty of murder No. He is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done is different from what he intended. Legal Basis 1. The present case is covered by Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code which provides: “criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.” 2. Article 14 Par 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that advantage taken by the offender of his public position is considered as an aggravating circumstance. Application Although the intent of the accused was just to abuse the victim, the trial court correctly convicted him of murder as a result of his actions. (Based on Art. 248 Par. 3) The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position. o He could not have maltreated Napola if he was not a policeman on guard duty. o He had access to the cell where Napola was confined, the prisoner under his custody. Yes. The trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance. Legal Basis Article 13 Paragraph 3 provides that one of the mitigating circumstances is that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Application W/N the accused is entitled to any mitigating circumstance. LAW 109 Criminal Law 1 T,Th, 10-11:30 AM| Idelfonso Jimenez BGC DAY 2 2025 Page 3 of 3 It is manifest from the facts that appellant had no intent to kill Napola. He only intended to maltreat him. When Ural realized the consequences of his act, he allowed Napola to secure medical treatrment. However, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offset the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse in his official position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for murder. (If the aggravating and mitigating circumstance are offset, the medium penalty shall be imposed.) DISPOSITION Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the same is affirmed with costs against the appellant. The trial court’s decision is affirmed sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua as the penalty for murder.
