450 Phil. 304
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses PO3 Armando C. Dalag of the crime of PARRICIDE (Under Art. 246 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659, committed as follows:
That on or about the 15th day of August, 1996, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused Armando C. Dalag, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with evident premeditation, that is having conceived and deliberated to kill his wife, Leah Nolido Dalag, with whom he was united in lawful wedlock, did, then and there, attack, assault, dragged (sic) and inflict serious multiple injuries upon his wife, Leah Nolido Dalag, in the different parts of her body, to wit:
Cranio-Cerebral Trauma with probale (sic) severe diffuse Axonal injury r/o Intracranial hematoma; r/o Multifocal Cerebral Contusions; Multiple Abrasions-Contusions; face, neck anterior chest extremities and such other injuries contained in the post exhumation autopsy/examination report employing means, manner and form in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specially to insure its commission without danger to the person of the accused, as a result of which attack and injuries caused the death of said Leah N. Dalag.[2]
On his arraignment, Armando, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.[3] Trial ensued.
Dr. Cruel testified that Leah suffered severe beatings and traumatic physical violence resulting in intracranial hemorrhage which caused her death.FINDINGS
ABRASIONS:CONTUSED ABRASIONS, brownish:
- 2.0 cms. x 3.0 cms., xiphi-sternal area, chest;
- 6.0 cms. x 8.0 cms., multiple, in various sizes and shapes, knee region, left;
- 5.0 cms. x 7.0 cms., multiple, in various sizes and shapes, elbow region, left;
- 6.0 cms. x. 10.0 cms. multiple, in various sizes and shapes, elbow region, right;
- 4.0 cms. x 11.0 cms., multiple, in various sizes and shapes, dorsal aspect, hand, right;
- 1.5 cms. x 3.0 cms., shoulder, left.
CONTUSIONS, purplish-brown:
- 4.0 cms. x 7.5 cms., lateral aspect, malleolar area, left;
- 6.0 cms. x 6.5 cms., lateral aspect, malleolar area, right;
- 1.0 cm. X 2.5 cms., temporal area, head, left side.
Scalp hematoma, parietal region, head, right side, with shallow depression of the right, temporal bone along the pterion.
- 1.0 cm x 3.0 cms., antero-lateral aspect, arm, middle third, right;
- 2.0 cms. x 4.0 cm., anterior aspect, middle third, thigh, right;
- 5.0 cms. x 6.5 cms., anterior aspect, middle third, thigh right;
- 2.5 cms. x 4.0 cms., antero-lateral aspect, proximal third, leg, right;
- 1.5 cms. in diameter, infra-mammary region, chest, right side;
- 1.5 cms. in diameter, medial aspect, chest, right side;
- 3.5 cms. x 6.5 cms., axillary region, right.
Blood, clotted, approximately 100 milliliters in volume, anterior fossa, right.
Brain and other visceral organs, pale.
Pleural and peritoned cavity, non-bloody.
Stomach, empty.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Intracranial hemorrhage secondary to blunt injury of the head.[7]
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused, ARMANDO CUSTODIO DALAG, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and one analogous to “passion and obfuscation” and there being no aggravating circumstance in attendance in [the] commission of the crime, hereby sentences the accused to serve the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all its accessory penalties and to indemnify the children of the deceased, Leah Nolido-Dalag, the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P 50,000.00) PESOS. No costs.In his appeal brief, Armando, now the appellant, contends that:
SO ORDERED.[8]
The issues raised by appellant involve the credibility of witnesses and their testimony and the probative weight thereof. He, in effect, assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the probative weight accorded by the trial court to their respective testimonies.I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED INFLICTED INJURIES TO THE DECEASED THAT CAUSED HER DEATH.II
THAT THE LOWER [COURT] ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONIES OF FRANCIS AND PRINCESS JOY DALAG WHICH WERE FABRICATED AND COACHED.III
THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CRE[C]ENCE (SIC) TO THE UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF MARCOS NOLIDO, JR. WHO HAS AN AXED (SIC) TO GRIND AGAINST THE ACCUSED.[9]
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | How about your mother and father at that time? Do you know where they were? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | Where? |
A | They were outside of our house near the datiles tree. |
| |
Q | Do you know what were they doing there? |
A | My father was drinking. |
| |
Q | How about your mother? |
A | My mother was admonishing my father to stop drinking. |
| |
Q | Why do you know that? |
A | Because I went out of our house. |
| |
Q | Why did you go out from you[r] house? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Because I heard my mother crying. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | Aside from hearing your mother crying, did you hear anything else? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | What was that? |
A | I heard something banged against our wall. |
| |
Q | So, when you went out from your house, did you see your father and mother there? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | And what did you see? |
A | My father and mother were quarreling. |
| |
Q | Was your mother fighting with your father or you[r] father fighting with your mother? |
A | I saw my father fighting with my mother. |
| |
Q | What was your father doing to your mother? |
A | He was castigating or maltreating my mother. |
| |
Q | Can you specifically tell the court how was your father maltreated (sic) or “castigo” your mother? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | He punched and at the same time kicked my mother. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | How about your mother? What was she doing? |
A | She was crying. |
| |
Q | Was she fighting back? |
A | No, she was not fighting back. |
| |
Q | Now, when your mother was kicked and punched by your father, what happened to her? |
A | While my father was physically abusing my mother, my mother was crying while she was sitting on the ground. |
| |
Q | When your father kicked your mother, where was she hit? |
A | She was hit on her stomach. |
| |
Q | How about the boxing? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | The punches of my father landed all over the body of my mother. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | How many times did your father punch and kick your mother that night? |
A | Many times. |
| |
… | |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | During this physical abuse inflicted by your father to your mother, what happened to your mother that evening while you were still there? |
| |
ATTY. GRIJALDO: | |
| Objection, your honor. It was already answered by the child. He said his mother was crying, your honor, while she was physically abused by the accused. |
| |
COURT: | |
| Overruled, may answer. |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | She was sitting on the ground. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | While she was sitting on the ground, did your father continue maltreating her? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
… | |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | And when you went out, what did you see again? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | When I went out again while my parents were still quarreling, me and my younger sister told my father, “Tatay, that’s enough.” And my Tatay told her, “Do not interfere or else, I will beat you by and by.” |
| |
Q | And when you heard this, what did you do? |
A | When our father told us not to interfere, and ordered us to go back inside our house, we complied with his order while he was still continuing beating our mother. So, I went out again. |
| |
Q | When you went out again, did you see anything? |
A | They were no longer there. |
| |
Q | Later, did you see them? I withdraw that question. So, when you saw that they were not there, what did you do? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | I went out of the road in front of our house to look for my parents but they were not there. |
| |
Q | So, what did you do? |
A | I went back inside. |
| |
Q | When you went back inside, what did you do? |
A | After I went back inside of our house, I was so terrified and I sat down for awhile and went to sleep. |
| |
Q | Later, did you wake up? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | And when you woke up, what did you do? |
A | When I woke up, I saw my mother already unconscious. |
| |
Q | Where was your mother then while she was unconscious? |
A | She was lying on the ground near the datiles tree. |
| |
… | |
| |
Q | And did you see the physical condition of your mother when you brought her inside the house? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | Will you please tell the court how did you see or observed the physical condition of your mother that night? |
A | After we brought our mother inside our house I observed that on her face, there were several lumps and at the same time, she also had bruises on both of her arms, and also somewhere in the middle of her breast. |
| |
Q | How about the legs? Did you see your mother’s legs or thighs? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | What did you see? |
A | My mother’s legs had also bruises. |
| |
Q | Did you see any blood on your mother’s body or face? |
A | I saw my mother was bleeding on her right ear. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | After that, what did you do after your mother was brought in to your house? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | My father ordered me to get some hot water. |
| |
Q | Where you the one who got the hot water? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | And what happened then when you brought that hot water? |
A | After I brought some hot water, my father used it to wipe of (sic) wash my mother. |
| |
Q | After that, what happened? What did you do? |
A | While my father was washing my mother with lukewarm water, I noticed that my mother never regained consciousness and she had several cuts and bruises on her body. |
| |
Q | Later that evening, what happened? |
A | I went back to sleep. |
| |
… | |
| |
Q | Now, this incident on August 15, 1996, was this the first time that you saw your father beat your mother? |
A | No, ma’am. That was not the first time. Actually, there were several occasions where my father beat my mother. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | Later, you said your mother was brought to the hospital. Were you able to visit your mother at the hospital the following day? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | Did you see your mother? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | Can you tell us how your mother looked at the hospital? |
A | When I visited my mother at the hospital, I noticed that her face was swo[l]len and [s]he had several lumps on her face and I also noticed that she still had so many bruises in both arms and body. |
| |
Q | At the hospital, was your mother able to regain consciousness or talked to you? |
A | No, ma’am. My mother never regained consciousness. |
| |
Q | Ultimately, do you know what happened to your mother at the hospital? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | What happened to her? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | She died. |
| |
Q | Do you know when your mother died? |
A | My mother died on August 22, 1996.[13] |
PROSECUTOR PELAYO: | |
| And what did you see that evening? What happened between your father and your mother? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| They had a quarrel. |
| |
PROSECUTOR PELAYO: | |
| And what was your father doing then while he was quarreling with your mother? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My father physically abused my mother. |
| |
PROSECUTOR PELAYO: | |
| Can you tell the Court how did your father physically abused or beat or “castigo” your mother that evening of October 15, 1996? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My father first choked my mother’s neck, he banged her head against something and lastly, he kicked her under her left armpit. |
| |
ATTY. GRIJALDO: | |
| My we suggest that the phrase “banged her head on something” be changed to “banged her head on a wall.” |
| |
COURT: | |
| On something. Let that interpretation stay and we will clarify from the witness as we go along. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| You said your father banged your mother on something. Can you tell us how did your father banged her head on something? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My father held my mother on the head and banged my mother’s head against the wall. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| And what part of your mother’s head that hit the wall? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My mother’s forehead hit the wall. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| When your mother’s head hit the wall, what happened to her? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| About the same time, my mother’s head was against the wall, my father stepped on a nail. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| You said your father kicked your mother. What was the position of your mother when your father kicked her? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My mother was lying prone on the ground. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| How did your father kicked your mother this time? Please describe. |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| He just kept on kicking my mother while she was lying prone on the ground. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| Did you see where your mother was hit? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| She was hit on the left side portion of her stomach. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| Did you see how your father was able to hit your mother here at her side, under her left side. |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My father kicked my mother and he hit the left portion of her body under her left side which caused my mother to roll on the ground. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| About your mother, what was she doing, was she fighting back? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| No, ma’am. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| What was she doing? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| She was just merely crying. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| You said later your father stepped on a nail. So, what happened when he stepped on a nail. |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| After my father stepped on a nail my mother told him “Toy, Toy, I will find some medicine for your wound” and my mother went out and went to the house of Tia Feli. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| After your mother ran away from your father, what happened after that? |
| |
ATTY. GRIJALDO: | |
| We object, Your Honor, the witness did not say that her mother ran away. |
| |
COURT: | |
| Reform. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| After your mother ran away, as you said … |
| |
ATTY. GRIJALDO: | |
| Same objection, Your Honor. |
| |
COURT: | |
| Same ruling. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| When your mother told your father that she was going to get medicine to apply on the wound of your father, did she ran (sic) or did she walk (sic) from your father? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| She ran. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| So, when your mother left, running away, what did you do? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| I went out to look for my mother and my father but in doing so I no longer found them on our yard. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| When your mother ran away, what did your father do? |
| |
ATTY. GRIJALDO: | |
| Objection, Your Honor, her mother did not run away to get medicine. |
| |
COURT: | |
| Sustained. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| When your mother ran, what did your father do? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| When my mother get (sic) out and ran, my father chased my mother. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| You said you went out of the house and looked for your father and your mother and you found out that they were not there anymore. Since you found out that your father and mother were not there anymore in your yard, what did you do? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| I went back to our house. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| What did you do inside your house? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| I slept for a while. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| Later, were you able to wake up that same evening? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| Yes, sir. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| What made you wake up again? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| I overheard my mother crying. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| Meaning, you heard your mother crying … I withdraw. So, when you heard your mother crying, what did you do because you have already woke up? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| I went out. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| When you went out from your house after waking up and hearing the cry of your mother, did you see your father and mother outside your house? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| Yes, ma’am. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| What did you see? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| I saw my father pushed my mother. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| When your father pushed your mother, what happened to your mother? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My mother, after being pushed by my father, fell to the ground and lost her consciousness. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| When your mother lost consciousness, what did your father do? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| When my mother lost consciousness, my father laid her on some stone on the ground. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| What else did your father do aside from lying your mother on the stone? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| After my mother was laid down on some stone (sic), my father on a sitting position, ordered me to get some water and when I came back I poured the water on my mother. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| After you poured water on your mother, did your mother came to consciousness? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| No, ma’am. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| What else did your father do? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| My father tried to resuscitate her by supplying air into her mouth. |
| |
PROSECUTOR CHUA: | |
| Did your mother recover? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| No, ma’am.[14] |
Q | Doctor, you saw the patient Leah N. Dalag, of course? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | You examined her personally? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | You examined the extent of her injuries when she was brought in to the hospital and you saw her for the first time? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Yes, and in fact, I have to add. In this particular case, I was interested specifically because I was suspecting some foul play because the history, it was told by the Resident Physician that she fell but I saw a lot of discrepancies – injuries. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | So, will you please describe the injuries that you have observed when you examined this particular patient and such injuries that are now reflected in this diagram which have been made under your direction which you have testified earlier? |
A | She had peri-orbital hematomas. |
| |
Q | Can you explain that in the layman’s language? |
A | Okey. She had a blackeye. She had also evidence of contusion, hematoma also on the right mastoid area. |
| |
Q | Where is that, Doctor? |
A | Behind the ear. Those two (2) signs indicate usually basal fracture and hemorrhage on the base of the brain. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | What else have you noticed on the face of the patient, Doctor? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | The one which really struck me and I was suspicious then, were the apparent fingermarks. |
| |
COURT: | |
Q | Where? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
| In the neck. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | And what does that indicate – these clawmarks on the neck which arose your suspicion? |
A | They were located on the anterior part of the neck. |
| |
Q | And what does this indicate? How does this mark came into the neck of the patient? |
A | Well, to be honest, it was my own opinion then because there was a discrepancy from the injuries I have seen and the alleged accident which was told by the informer that time. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | And Doctor, in your opinion, what could have caused this injury on the neck? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | I was suspecting that she was strangled. |
| |
Q | Now, Doctor, there is also a mark on this diagram here. Can you tell us what is this on the chest? |
A | That is another contusion abrasion which I noted. |
| |
Q | Where? |
A | On the anterior part of the chest at the level of the syphoid process. This is the most interior part of the sternum. |
| |
Q | In layman’s language Doctor, what part of the body is that? |
A | Well, it is just midline just below the level of her breast. |
| |
Q | Now, Doctor, there are also here some marks on the ear of the patient as drawn here. Can you tell or explain this to us? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | This was explained earlier. These are hematomas, contusions. Hematomas at the mastoid area. It is usually a sign of basal skull fracture. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | Now, Doctor, was this contusion and hematoma found on both ears of the patient Leah Dalag? |
A | I cannot recall but based on this drawing, it is bilateral – on both sides of the ears. |
| |
Q | Doctor, have you noticed upon examination of the patient whether or not blood was coming out from any part of her body? |
A | I cannot recall. |
| |
Q | What else have you noticed, Doctor, aside from hematomas and contusions? |
A | I cannot recall everything but I note some abrasions on the extermities (sic) – in the elbows. |
| |
Q | How about on the temple? On the head? Aside from those that you have described on the two (2) ears, how about the portion on the head? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | None. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | Now, Doctor, is it possible that a human brain can sustain internal injuries without outward manifestation which may be visible to the naked eyes? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | Can you give specific instance, Doctor? Can you explain further? |
A | The brain floats inside the skull. Imagine the brain contained in a glass jar with fluid. The brain floats there and any movement of the jar will cause also an acceleration-deceleration movement. If you translate it into a force applied to the skull, for example a vehicular accident – the brain can bust to and fro or even rotated around the skull and cause the internal injuries. |
| |
COURT: | |
Q | Just like the effect of boxing? |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Yes, Your Honor. |
| |
COURT: | |
Q | Whether professional or amateur boxing? |
A | Yes, your honor. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | How about Doctor, when you choke a person? Shake him or her – can it sustain brain damage? |
| |
ATTY. GRIJALDO: | |
| We object to the question, your honor. That already assumes that this witness, your honor, is being presented as an expert witness, your honor. The purpose of presenting this witness is to testify on his findings on the injuries sustained by the deceased, your honor. He was not presented as an expert witness, your honor. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
| He was. |
| |
COURT: | |
| Pañero, I have been keeping track of the qualification of the physician. He is not an ordinary physician. But he has specialized in Neurology. That is why he is considered as a specialist. |
| |
ATTY. GRIJALDO: | |
| But he was offered to testify on his findings on the deceased, your honor. |
| |
COURT: | |
| That is why the findings here are contusions. He is explaining now why he arrived at this conclusion. He is going into the details. That is how I understand. Overruled. May answer. The court would like also to know about that. |
| |
WITNESS: | |
A | Choking with a finger or even whatever means, an assailant can inflict causing several injuries; not only the shaking of the head. At the same time, he also decrease oxygenation of the brain. Because there are several factors involved here. First, the patient can’t breath, therefore, she will have asphyxia. Choking can also compress the carotid arteries which supply the main supply of blood to the brain. This also causes hypoxemia which decrease oxygenation of the blood. So, aside from the injuries being sustained by the brain by the force acted upon by the shaking, it causes swelling of the brain because of the other factors that I mentioned –hypoxemia and asphyxia. |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
Q | Now, Doctor, assuming the facts as already established by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as well as what you have testified, can you state with reasonable certainty whether in your opinion, the injuries suffered by the deceased was the direct result of the violence and batterings from the hands of the accused Armando Dalag on August 15, 1996? |
| |
ATTY. GRJALDO: | |
| Objection, your honor. |
| |
COURT: | |
| Sustained. Do not point to the accused. Reform |
| |
FISCAL CHUA: | |
| I reform, your honor. |
| |
Q | Assuming the facts as already established by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the injuries that you have described just right now, can you state in your own opinion with reasonable certainty that the injuries suffered by the deceased was the direct result of the violence and the batterings she received on August 15, 1996 or before she was brought to the hospital? |
A | Yes, ma’am. |
| |
Q | Now, further assuming the facts established by other witnesses in this case, can you state with reasonable certainty whether in your opinion, the injuries sustained by the deceased Leah N. Dalag could have caused her death on August 22, 1996? |
A | Yes, ma’am.[16] |
The denials of the accused that he authored the injuries sustained by his wife and his claim that she was injured because she hit her head on two big stones when she accidentally fell, appear illogical and a poor concoction of facts, so hard to believe in the light of undisputed findings and conclusions by medical experts declaring otherwise, and the recollection of facts by the eye-witnesses.[17]The trial court thus correctly concluded that the injuries sustained by Leah that caused her death were the consequence of the appellant’s deliberate and intentional acts. The appellant is criminally liable for the death of Leah pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
ART. 246. Parricide. – Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. (Restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659.)The prosecution is mandated to prove the following essential elements: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.[18] The prescribed penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to death.[19] The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate.[20] In this case, the prosecution proved all the essential elements of parricide.
The trial court declared that the appellant was “agitated and angered” when Leah failed to return immediately from Tia Feli’s house where she was supposed to get medicine for his wounded foot. The attitude of Leah was, as found by the trial court, “obviously unjust and improper to a husband who was suffering and bleeding.”[22] This conclusion of the trial court is without factual basis. This Court agrees with the finding of the trial court that Leah did not bother getting medicine for the injury on the foot of the appellant when he stepped on a nail as he martyred Leah. However, this Court believes that Leah told the appellant that she was going to the house of Felisa to get medicine for his injured foot merely as a ploy to enable her to escape from him and avoid further physical abuse. Leah cannot be faulted for preferring to escape from the clutches of the appellant rather than get medicine for the injured foot of the latter. She was being assaulted by the appellant relentlessly and without mercy. Unless she escaped from the clutches of the appellant, she would be killed by him. Leah could not be expected to first get medicine, return to the house and treat the injured foot of the appellant only to be assaulted again by her husband. For the trial court to blame Leah for preferring to escape and survive rather than treat the injured foot of the appellant, and reward the appellant by mitigating his criminal liability is a travesty.
- That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
…
- And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.