PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGOG.R. No. 183566

May 8, 2009

Facts: Adrian Quinto, together with Oliver Quinto (deceased), was delivering a letter. On their way home, they had an encounter with the respondent, which resulted to a sudden hacking of the respondent to Adrian with a Sundang (or long Bolo, shit!!!!! Bolo pa rin? Anong petsa na po sir?). Adrian, after being hacked with a bolo twice, managed to push Oliver out of the pedicab to call for help and was able to run before he lost consciousness. When he woke in the hospital, he found out that Oliver was dead. Respondent claimed that he tried to get away with the Quinto’s but the latter chased him and insisted a fight. He claimed that Adrian bumped his pedicab that caused the respondent to swerve to the middle of the road. When respondent looked back, he saw Adrian approaching him with a knife that made the former to grab a Sundang from his pedicab. The respondent hacked Adrian’s hand causing the latter o drop his weapon. Respondent had no injuries and denied the killing of Oliver. When Adiran was about to pick up the knife, respondent hacked him again. Respondent challenged CA that mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, incomplete self-defense, and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong were not appreciated.

Issue: WON CA erred in NOT APPRECIATING THE following MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF:

1. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, 2. INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE, AND 3. LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG?

Held:

1. No. For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous and in a manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional surrender to the authorities, either based on recognition of guilt or from the desire to save the authorities from the trouble and expenses that would be involved in the accused’s search and capture. Moreover, it is imperative that the accused was not actually arrested, the surrender is before a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority, and the surrender was voluntary. Respondent’s own admission was he only went to the authorities to inform them that Adrian was injured and claimed he had nothing to do with the murder of Oliver.

2. No. In incomplete self-defense, the indispensable requisite is unlawful aggression. Respondent’s self-serving claim of self-defense coupled with the fact that he did not sustain any injuries from his supposed attacker, Adrian, fails to support any claim of unlawful aggression, the crucial requisite to his defense. As the appellate court noted, there was no clear, credible, and convincing evidence that Adrian was the one who instigated the fight and that accused-appellant was merely fending off an attack.

3. No. This mitigating circumstance addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when the offender executes or commits the criminal act. Looking at the victims’ wounds, however, we cannot count the circumstance in respondent’s favor. Adrian suffered a hacking wound on his left forearm that caused near amputation, and another one on his lumbar area. These wounds would have been fatal were it not for timely medical assistance.