People v.

Takbobo
G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993

FACTS:

This case is an appeal on the decision of Cebu City RTC Branch 8 which
convicted accused-appellant Ruben Takbobo for the crime of parricide by
killing his wife.
Takbobo is a middle-aged fisherman who married victim Lucia Takbobo in
1969. They were residing at Ginatilan, Cebu at the time of the incident,
together with their youngest daughter Madilyn. Their other children were
staying with a certain David Manus since "they were afraid of their father."
Madilyn recounted that on the night of March 25, 1991, at around 11:00
o'clock in the evening, she was awakened by noise caused by a quarrel
between her parents. Afterwards, she saw her father the accused taking a
hunting knife and a bolo from a cabinet and used them to hack her mother on
her feet, neck, hands, armpit, and breasts. The other breast was sliced.
o On the following morning, she found her mother dead and the accused
escaped.
Meanwhile, shortly after the incident, the accused surrendered himself to the
police authorities and told them about the same. However, contrary to the
prosecutions story, accused claimed, a as a defense, that he killed his wife
because he caught her sleeping with another man.
o He related that at about 3:00 o'clock in the early morning of March 25,
1991, as he arrived home from fishing, he was surprised when, upon
opening their door, he saw his wife sleeping with their neighbor, Cadiz
Catulong.
o He tried to kill him by stabbing him but his wife pushed the man who
then immediately jumped out of the window. As a result, his wife was
hit by his thrust. He then found out that his wife had no panty.
o He tried to look for Cadiz Catulong but failed to find him. He
immediately related the incident to the police though he was not able
to execute his affidavit as he was then very confused.
The Prosecutor charged him for parricide.
During his arraignment, accused pleaded guilty. Accordingly, the trial court
rendered judgment finding appellant guilty as charged, imposing upon him
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased.
In his instant appeal, accused claimed that the trial court erred for not
appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstances of passion and
obfuscation, voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilty.

ISSUE:

RULING: