People v. Licarte
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Prior trouble existed between the families of the appellant and the offended party. On September 18, 1910, the offended party, Benita Soyso, sent her son to the accused's house to retrieve a loaned bolo. The accused's daughter, Filomena, stated she knew nothing about the bolo. Benita Soyso, hearing this from her house opposite, began verbally abusing Filomena with vile names. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Batangas found the defendant, Vicenta Licarte, guilty of lesiones menos graves, sentencing her to four months and one day of arresto mayor, indemnity, and subsidiary imprisonment. The trial court considered the aggravating circumstance of morada (commission in the dwelling of the offended party). The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the offended party constitutes an aggravating circumstance when the offended party initiated the provocation. Whether passion and obfuscation arising from the insult to the accused's daughter should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is modified. The penalty imposed upon the appellant is reduced to one month and one day of arresto mayor. The judgment, as modified, is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the aggravating circumstance of 'morada': The Court held that the commission of a crime in the dwelling of the offended party is an aggravating circumstance under Article 10, No. 20 of the Penal Code, but only if the offended party has not given provocation. In this case, Benita Soyso initiated the trouble by calling Filomena, the accused's daughter, vile names. This provocation negated the aggravating circumstance of morada. The Court cited a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated October 24, 1894, supporting this interpretation. Therefore, it was an error for the lower court to consider morada as an aggravating circumstance. On the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation: The Court found that the accused, Vicenta Licarte, a woman of about fifty years of age, heard her single daughter being grossly insulted. She appeared at the offended party's house demanding an explanation, which was not forthcoming, leading to a quarrel. The accused inflicted the wounds while laboring under great excitement and passion. The Court considered these facts as a mitigating circumstance under Article 9, No. 7 of the Penal Code. Given the presence of one mitigating circumstance and the absence of aggravating circumstances, the penalty should have been imposed in its minimum degree.
Main Doctrine
The commission of a crime in the dwelling of the offended party is an aggravating circumstance only if the offended party has not given provocation. If provocation exists, it negates the aggravating circumstance of 'morada'. Furthermore, passion and obfuscation arising from the insult to a daughter should be considered a mitigating circumstance.