TOPIC: Justifying circumstances - Defense of Self, Relatives, and Strangers
CASE: People v. Jaurigue, GR No. 384, 21 February 1946, 76 Phil. 174
FACTS:
- The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee and Nicolas Jaurigue
and Avelina Jaurigue as the defendants, with Avelina Jaurigue as the appellant.
- The incident occurred in the barrio of Sta. Isabel, San Pablo City, Laguna, on the evening of
September 20, 1942. Avelina Jaurigue was convicted of homicide for killing Amado Capia in a
chapel.
- Prior to the incident, Amado had been persistently courting Avelina, who had repeatedly
rejected his advances. On one occasion, Amado snatched Avelina's handkerchief, and on
another, he embraced, kissed, and touched her inappropriately, leading Avelina to arm herself
with a knife for self-protection.
- On the night of the incident, Amado sat beside Avelina in a well-lit chapel and placed his hand
on her thigh. In response, Avelina stabbed him in the neck with a knife, resulting in his death.
- Avelina immediately surrendered to the barrio lieutenant and admitted to the stabbing.
- The Court of First Instance of Tayabas found Avelina guilty of homicide and sentenced her to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from seven years, four months, and one day of prision mayor to
thirteen years, nine months, and eleven days of reclusion temporal. Avelina appealed the
decision, claiming errors in the lower court's judgment.
ISSUE:
1. Did the lower court err in not holding that Avelina Jaurigue acted in legitimate defense of her
honor and should be completely absolved of all criminal responsibility?
2. Did the lower court err in not finding additional mitigating circumstances in Avelina's favor,
such as lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and voluntary surrender?
3. Did the trial court err in holding that the offense was attended by the aggravating
circumstance of being committed in a sacred place?
RULING:
1. The court ruled that Avelina Jaurigue cannot be completely exempt from criminal liability as the
means employed in the defense of her honor were excessive.
2. The court found that the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, obfuscation, and
lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong should be considered in Avelina's favor.
3. The court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of the offense being committed in a sacred
place cannot be legally sustained.
The court acknowledged that while Avelina acted in defense of her honor, the means she employed
were excessive given the circumstances. The chapel was well-lit, and there were several people
present, including her father and the barrio lieutenant, making it unlikely that she was in
immediate danger of being raped. However, the court recognized the mitigating circumstances of
Avelina's immediate and voluntary surrender, her temporary loss of reason and self-control due to
the provocation, and her lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. The court also noted that
the aggravating circumstance of the offense being committed in a sacred place was not applicable,
as there was no evidence that Avelina had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel.
Consequently, the court modified the judgment, reducing Avelina's sentence to an indeterminate
penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months, and one
day of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law.
