Scribd
Upload
4K views1 page

(Crimlaw) People Vs Pagal GR No. L-32040

Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino pleaded guilty to robbing and killing their employer Gaugan by stabbing him with an ice pick and clubbing him with an iron pipe, stealing P1,281. They claimed the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and acting in passion/obfuscation. The trial court did not accept these claims and sentenced them to death. The Supreme Court upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the sentence to reclusion perpetua, finding only one aggravating circumstance that was offset by their guilty plea.

Uploaded by

Aquino, JP
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4K views1 page

(Crimlaw) People Vs Pagal GR No. L-32040

Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino pleaded guilty to robbing and killing their employer Gaugan by stabbing him with an ice pick and clubbing him with an iron pipe, stealing P1,281. They claimed the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and acting in passion/obfuscation. The trial court did not accept these claims and sentenced them to death. The Supreme Court upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the sentence to reclusion perpetua, finding only one aggravating circumstance that was offset by their guilty plea.

Uploaded by

Aquino, JP
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Aquino, JP

People vs. Pagal GR No. L-32040, October 25, 1977 EN BANC Ponente: Conception, Jr., J. Topic: Sufficient provocation or threat

CRIM1

Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, with 4 generic aggravating circumstances. They stole the amount of P1,281.00 and killed Gaugan, their then employer, by stabbing him with an ice pick and clubbing him with an iron pipe. During the arraignment, the counsel for the accused informed the court of their intention to plead guilty, provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation. The judge asked if that is truly what the accused wanted to do, and the accused agreed. The accused were arraigned and both pleaded guilty. The accused were then allowed to present their evidence, which were claims of maltreatment/ill-treatment by the deceased. After they rested their case, the prosecution presented the statements of the accused and other pertinent documents. After considering the aggravating circumstances, and accepting only the mitigating circumstance of pleading guilty, the court rendered its decision finding both accused GUILTY, and sentenced to death. The case was elevated to the SC for mandatory review on account of the death penalty imposed. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation, and passion or obfuscation as claimed via evidence by the accused. HELD: No. The trial court found the appellants contention devoid of merit. First, mitigating circumstances presented can only be counted as one, because they arose from the same incident. Second, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly meditated before its execution. Third, The maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against them occurred much earlier than the date of the commission of the crime. Provocation, in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. [When the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, he is deemed to have admitted all the material facts alleged in the information. A plea of guilty when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even for a capital offense without the introduction of further evidence. ] (optional, not necessary to the topic, just an FYI) After reviewing the case, the court held that there was only one generic aggravating circumstance, instead of four, and this was then offset by the only accepted mitigating circumstance of the guilty plea. Through this, the appellants were each imposed upon with the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.

FACTS:

You might also like