Criminal Case Digest: G.R. No. 133382 March 9, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN MENDOZA y

G.R. No. 133382             March 9, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN MENDOZA y SALVADOR, accused-appellant.
Criminal Case Digest
Digested Cases
Criminal Law 

Facts:
According the testimonies of appellant Efren Salvador and his family, Anchito Nano began destroying their house and thereafter had hit appellant’s son, Ernie Mendoza, in the head which prompted appellant to take action and hack Anchito with a bolo in defense of his home, his family, and himself. He later surrendered to the police after the incident and thereafter trial ensued. Due to the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense and the lack of proof for the requisite of unlawful aggression, appellant’s plea of self-defense and defense of a relative cannot be appreciated. Appellant was found guilty and although the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated in his favor it was offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery.

Issue:
Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery

Ruling:
A qualifying circumstance changes the nature of the crime. A generic aggravating circumstance, on the other hand, does not affect the designation of the crime; it merely provides for the imposition of the prescribed penalty in its maximum period. Thus, while a generic aggravating circumstance may be offset by a mitigating circumstance, a qualifying circumstance may not. 32

Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance. Its presence served to characterize the killing as murder; it cannot at the same time be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it cannot offset voluntary surrender.


Post a Comment (0)
Previous Post Next Post