People v. Ortencio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the morning of May 9, 1917, in the municipality of Pilar, Capiz, the accused, Victor Ortencio, urged his wife, Catalina Villaranda, to return home. When she refused, the accused grabbed her neck with one hand and struck her head with a rice pestle using the other. The victim's mother, Eugenia Dolorota, who was the sole eyewitness, attempted to intervene but was also struck on the forehead, causing her to flee. The victim, Catalina Villaranda, was found motionless on the floor. Procedural History: The accused was charged with parricide in the Court of First Instance of Capiz. He appealed his conviction and sentence to cadena perpetua. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of parricide. Whether the accused's defense of having surprised his wife in the act of adultery is tenable. Whether extenuating circumstances exist in the commission of the crime.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance was affirmed, with modifications. The accused was sentenced to cadena perpetua, with accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs of both instances. One-half of the time suffered by the accused in preventive imprisonment was to be computed as an allowance in his penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the accused is guilty of parricide: The Court found that the physical evidence contradicted the accused's claim of having inflicted only one blow. The sanitary inspector found five contused wounds on the victim's head and another on her right rib, all of a serious nature and of doubtful consequences. This number and severity of injuries, as testified to by the sole ocular witness, Eugenia Dolorota, rendered the accused's assertion incredible. The Court concluded that the victim received various wounds from her husband, resulting in her death, which bore the characteristics of parricide under Article 402 of the Penal Code, with no justification for the acts alleged by the accused. On Whether the accused's defense of having surprised his wife in the act of adultery is tenable: The Court rejected the accused's defense. It reasoned that if the mother-in-law, Eugenia Dolorota, was present in the uncle's house, it was improbable that an act of conjugal infidelity would have been committed in broad daylight in a small house before witnesses. Furthermore, the accused's claim that he struck only at Natalio Ortencio and that the blow accidentally hit his wife was disbelieved due to the multiple serious wounds found on the victim, which indicated a repeated assault. The testimony of the eyewitness directly contradicted the accused's allegations. On Whether extenuating circumstances exist in the commission of the crime: The Court considered the extenuating circumstances provided for in paragraphs 7 of Article 9 and Article 11 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2142. It found that the accused was an uneducated and uncultured person. Additionally, the conduct of his wife in refusing to return home and awaiting his return at Natalio Ortencio's place excited and kindled the jealousy the accused harbored against his uncle. These circumstances were deemed to extenuate his guilt, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, the accused was liable for the lesser of the two indivisible penalties for parricide, in accordance with Rule 3 of Article 80 of the Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for parricide, holding that the accused's defense of having surprised his wife in adultery was not credible given the number and nature of the wounds inflicted, and that the circumstances of jealousy and the wife's conduct, coupled with the accused's lack of education, constituted extenuating circumstances warranting the imposition of the lesser penalty.