THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
EPIFANIO DIOKNO and ROMAN DIOKNO, defendants-appellants. G.R. No. L-45100    October 26, 1936

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

FACTS:
At around 7 in the morning, in January, 1935, Salome Diokno asked her lover, Yu Hiong, to take her with him. In the afternoon on the same day, the couple took an automobile and headed for Pagbilao, where one of Salome’s cousins lived. The relative was not a home, so the couple went to San Pablo, Laguna. They stayed at the house of one Antonio Layco.
After a day or two, Epifanio[1], father of Salome, was informed by his son, Roman, through a telegraph that Salome was missing. The two very worried men began a search, and then learned of their stay at Laguna.
They proceeded to the house of one Antonio Layco, and immediately saw Yu Hiong descending the steps of the house. The ran up to him and caught him. Yu Hiong sank to his knees; begging for forgiveness. But the Diokno’s, understandably raging over their girl’s abduction, inflicted a total of five stab wounds on Yu Hiong with their balisongs[2]. Epifanio would’ve killed Yu Hiong on the spot, were it not for the timely intervention of Roman, who said: “Enough, father!”
Antonio Layco saw the barely conscious Yu Hiong , called the police[3], and the two men were apprehended . They were found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua  by the court of First Instance of Laguna.
 ISSUES
  1. Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the Dioknos of murder aggravated by evident premeditation
  2. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense
  3. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation
  4. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
HELD:
  1. Yes, the Dioknos are guilty only of HOMICIDE.
There was no aggravating circumstances attendant to the commission of the killing. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the intention to kill must be manifest and it must have been planned in the mind of the offender and carefully meditated. It is not enough that it arose at the moment of the aggression. For this reason, it is imperative to determine when the offender decided to commit the crime.
  1. Yes. While the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication can be considered, for the following reasons:
  1. Although what the law requires is that the vindication for the grave offense be done proximately to the later, the case at hand dealt with a continuing offense. Note that the whereabouts of their beloved Salome were unknown to them, prior to their discovery of Layco’s house in Laguna three days later. In the course of the three days, the men were subjected to mental and emotional tortures that lasted until the men came face to face with Yu Hiong. Therefore, there was no interruption between the offense against the honor of the Dioknos and the vindication. They therefore had no sufficient time to recover their serenity, they constantly suffered from the wrong.
  2. The determination of the gravity of a offense so as to somewhat deserve vindication may be ascertained form the following:
i.      The social standing of the person or his social, economic, educational, and cultural background. This also includes his age and his sex.
ii.      The time when the offense against him was made
iii.      The place when the offense was made
In this case at hand, the Supreme Court considered the family or cultural background of the Dioknos. The Dioknos were a traditional family, where the elopement of an unmarried couple is considered immoral and an attack against the family name and honor.
  1. Yes. the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was also properly appreciated by the Supreme Court. The men were understandably furious at the sudden disappearance of a family member; and when Yu Hiong ran upstairs when he saw the Dioknos, the unfortunate Chinese incensed the men by impliedly refusing to deal with them and at the same time admitting that he had committed against them a grave wrong.
  1. Yes. While the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was also considered by the SC for Epifanio. When approached by the policeman Curabo, Epifanio immediately admitted that it he who had stabbed Yu Hiong. He also surrender his balisong to the policeman and offered no resistance in being taken to the police station.
The same circumstance cannot be afforded to Roman Epifanio, who fled before the policeman, Curabo, arrived. This however further proves that the father also had ample to time to make an escape – but instead, he did not. A clear indication of willingness to surrender.
NOTE:
There were two dissenting opinions. One by Diaz, the other by Laurel. Laurel makes a good point. He dissented in the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of vindication:Because Salome and Yu Hiong were already of legal age.  Under existing legislation, a woman eighteen years of age or over, can contract marriage without the consent of her parents. Therefore, there was no offense committed against the Dioknos if the laws are to be taken into consideration.
Laurel assails that the interpretation of grave offenses should keep up with the times. According to him, eloping is now common in supposedly ‘conservative’ Philippine society. And to afford the Dioknos the benefit of a mitigating circumstance, in consideration of the prevailing customs was not realistic on the part of the court. In addition, it was Salome who invited Yu Hiong to elope. Thus, Yu Hiong did no wrong.