No.L47941.April30,1985.

THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.
JAIMETOMOTORGOyALARCON,defendantappellant
*

CriminalLaw;Parricide;Husbandguiltyofparricide,notseriousphysical
injurieswhichheallegedlyintendedtocommit,asunderArticle4ofthe
RevisedPenalCodeheiscriminallyliableforalltheconsequencesofhis
feloniousacts.Appellantmaintainsthebeliefthatheshouldbepunished
onlyfortheoffenseheintendedtocommitwhichheaverstobeserious
physicalinjuries,qualifiedbythefactthattheoffendedpartyishisspouse.
Pursuanttothesubparagraphofparagraph4ofArt.263oftheRevised
PenalCodeandashiswifeisamongthepersonsmentionedinArt.246of
thesamecode,appellantcontendsthatthepenaltyimposableshouldthenbe
reclusiontemporalinitsmediumandmaximumperiods.Onthismistaken
premise,appellantthereforeclaimsthatthepenaltyprescribedbylawforhis
offense is divisible andhe should thus beentitled tothe benefits of the
IndeterminateSentenceLaw.Thesecontentionsof
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
239

VOL.136,APRIL30,1985
239
Peoplevs.Tomotorgo
theaccusedaremanifestlyuntenableandincorrect.Article4oftheRevised
PenalCodeexpresslystatesthatcriminalliabilityshallbeincurredbyany
personcommittingafelony(delito)althoughthewrongfulactbedifferent
from that which he intended and that the accused is liable for all the
consequencesofhisfeloniousacts.
Same;Same;Same;Wherethewifediedverysoonaftershewasassaulted
byherhusband,Article263oftheRevisedPenalCodewhichprescribes
graduatedpenaltiesforthecorrespondingphysicalinjuriescommitted,is
notapplicable.ThereferencemadebytheaccusedtoArticle263ofthe
Revised Penal Code which prescribes graduated penalties for the
corresponding physical injuries committed is entirely misplaced and
irrelevantconsideringthatinthiscasethevictimdiedverysoonaftershe
wasassaulted.Itwillbe,therefore,illogicaltoconsiderappellantsactsas
fallingwithinthescopeofArticle263oftheRevisedPenalCode.Thecrime

committedisparricidenoless.
Same;Same;Same;IndeterminateSentenceLaw;Accusednotentitledto
thebenefitsoftheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,asArt.49oftheRevised
PenalCodedoesnotapplytocaseswheremoreseriousconsequencesnot
intendedbytheoffenderresultfromhisfeloniousactandthatparricideis
punishedwithreclusionperpetuatodeathunderArt.246oftheCode.We
areincompleteaccordwithandwesustaintherulingmadebythecourts
belowthattheaccusedisnotentitledtothebenefitsoftheIndeterminate
SentenceLaw.Thecourtsustainsthesubmissionsoftheappelleethatxx
xArticle49oftheRevisedPenalCodedoesnotapplytocaseswheremore
seriousconsequencesnotintendedbytheoffenderresultfromhisfelonious
actbecause,underArticle4,par.1ofthesameCode,heisliableforallthe
directandnaturalconsequencesofhisunlawfulact.Hislackofintentionto
commitsograveawrongis,atbest,mitigating(Article13,par.3).Article
49appliesonlytocaseswherethecrimecommittedisdifferentfromthat
intendedandwherethefelonycommittedbefallsadifferentperson(People
vs. Albuquerque, 59 Phil. 150) Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code
punishedparricidewiththepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath,whichare
two indivisible penalties. As the commission of the act was attended by
mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty, which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed (People vs.
Laureano,etal.,71Phil.530;Peoplevs.Francisco,78Phil.697;Peoplevs.
Belarmino,91Phil.118)AppelleesBrief,pp.67).(Italicssupplied)
240

24
0

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Tomotorgo
Same;Same;Same;Penalty;Thefactthattheaccusedintendedtomaltreat
thevictimonlyorinflictphysicalinjuriesdoesnotexempthimfromliability
fortheresultingandmoreseriouscrimecommitted;Penaltyofreclusion
perpetuatodeathforparricide,correct.Weholdthatthefactthatthe
appellant intended to maltreat the victim only or inflict physical injuries
doesnotexempthimfromliabilityfortheresultingandmoreseriouscrime
committed.InthecaseofPeoplevs.ClimacoDemiar,108Phil.651,where
theaccusedthereinhadchokedhismotherinafitofangerbecausethelatter
didnotprepareanyfoodforhim,itwasruledthatthecrimecommittedby
Demiarisparricide(Article246,RevisedPenalCode),thedeceasedvictim

ofhiscriminalactbeinghislegitimatemother.Saidcrimewasdeclaredas
punishablewithreclusionperpetuatodeath.AsheldbythisCourtinthat
case,theappellantisonlyentitledtothemitigatingcircumstanceoflackof
intenttocommitsograveawrong.(Article13(3Id.)Thepenaltyimposed
on the herein accused is therefore correct in the light of the relevant
provisionsoflawandjurisprudence.
Same; Same; Same; Recommendation for executive clemency or
commutationofsentence;appropriate,inviewofmanifestrepentantattitude
oftheaccused,absenceofobjectionoftheSolicitorGeneralandthemore
thansevenyearshehadbeenimprisoned;Caseatbar.Consideringthe
circumstanceswhichattendedthecommissionoftheoffense,themanifest
repentantattitudeoftheaccusedandhisremorseforhisactwhicheventhe
trial court made particular mention of in its decision and the
recommendationmadebytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralaswellasthe
numberofyearsthattheaccusedappellanthadbeenimprisoned,thisCourt
candonolessthanrecommendthatexecutiveclemencybeextendedtothe
accusedappellant, Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon, or that his sentence be
commutedsothathecannowqualifyandbeconsideredeligibleforparole.
This recommendation of the Court should be promptly brought to the
attentionofthePresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesbytheproper
authoritiesinwhosecustodythehereinaccusedhasbeenplaced.

APPEALfromthedecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
CamarinesSur,Br.IV.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
ALAMPAY,J.:
JaimeTomotorgoyAlarcon,theaccusedappellantinthis
241

VOL.136,APRIL30,1985
241
Peoplevs.Tomotorgo
case,appealsfromthedecisionrenderedonDecember22,1977,
bytheCourtofFirstInstanceofCamarinesSur,BranchIV,in
Criminal Case No. 403 of said court finding him guilty of the
crime of parricide for having killed his wife Magdalena de los
Santos.Thedispositiveportionofsaidjudgmentreads,asfollows:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,theaccusedJaime
Tomotorgo y Alarcon is hereby condemned to suffer the penalty of

reclusionperpetua andtoindemnifytheheirsofthedeceasedMagdalena
delos Santosinthesum of P12,000.00withoutsubsidiary imprisonment,
pluscosts.Andconsideringthecircumstancesunderwhichtheoffensewas
committed,thecourtherebyrecommendsexecutiveclemencyforhim,after
servingtheminimumofthemediumpenaltyofprisionmayor.
Letcopyofthisdecisionbefurnished,hisExcellency,thePresidentofthe
Philippines,andtheChairmanoftheBoardofPardonsandParole.
SOORDERED.
GivenatNagaCity,this22nddayofDecember,1977.
SGD.ALFREDOS.REBUENA
Judge(Rollo,pg.10)

Thefactsofthiscaseasrecitedinthedecisionofthetrialcourtand
intheappelleesbriefstanduncontrovertedandundisputed.From
theevidencesubmitteditisdisclosedthatthevictim,Magdalena
delosSantos,wasthewifeofthehereinaccused.Severalmonths
prior to the occurrence of the fatal incident on June 23, 1977,
MagdalenadelosSantoshadbeenpersistentlyaskingherhusband
to sell the conjugal home which was then located at Sitio
Dinalungan, Barangay Cabugao, Municipality of Siruma,
CamarinesSur.Shewantedtheirfamilytotransfertothehouseof
her husbands inlaws which is in the town of Tinambac,
Camarines Sur. (TSN, pp. 610, December 13, 1977). Accused
Tomotorgowouldnotaccedetohiswifesrequest.Hedidnotlike
toabandonthehousewhereinheandhiswifewerethenliving.
Furthermore,hehadnoinclinationtoleavebecausehehasmany
plantsandimprovementsonthelandwhichhewasthenfarmingin
said
242

24
2

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Tomotorgo
municipalityofSiruma,CamarinesSur,atownveryfarfromthe
placeofhisinlawswherehiswifedesiredtheirfamilytotransfer
to.

On June 23, 1977, at about seven oclock in the morning, the

accusedlefthishometoworkonhisfarm.Uponhisreturnatabout
nineoclockthatsamemorning.Hefoundhiswifeandhisthree
montholdbabyalreadygone.Heproceededtolookforbothof
themandsometimelateron,onatrailabouttwohundred(200)
metersfromtheirhome,hefinallysawhiswifecarryinghisinfant
sonandbringingabundleofclothes.Heaskedandpleadedwith
his wife that she should return home with their child but she
adamantly refused to do so. When appellant sought to take the
childfromhiswife,thelatterthrewthebabyonthegrassyportion
ofthetrailherebycausingthelattertocry.Thisconductofhiswife
arousedtheireofthehereinaccused.Incensedwithwrathandhis
angerbeyondcontrol,appellantpickedupapieceofwoodnearby
and started hitting his wife with it until she fell to the ground
complainingofseverepainsonherchest.Realizingwhathehad
done,theaccusedpickedhiswifeinhisarmsandbroughtherto
their home. He then returned to the place where the child was
thrown and he likewise took this infant home. Soon thereafter,
MagdalenadelosSantosdieddespitetheeffortsofherhusbandto
alleviateherpains.
Aftertheaccusedchangedthedressofhiswife,hereportedthe
tragicincidenttotheBarangayCaptainoftheirplacewhobrought
himtoPolicemanArellosatowhomtheaccusedsurrendered.He
alsobroughtwithhimthepieceofwoodheusedinbeatinghis
wife.
Chargedwiththecrimeofparricide,theaccusedathisarraignment
onNovember24,1977,withassistancefromhiscounseldeoficio,
pleadednotguiltytothesaidoffense.However,whenhiscasewas
calledfortrialonDecember13,1977,hiscounselmanifestedto
the court that after his conference with the accused, the latter
expressedadesiretochangehispreviouspleaofnotguiltytothat
of guilty. Accordingly, and upon motion by the counsel of the
accusedandwithoutobjectiononthepartoftheprosecution,the

trialcourtallowedtheaccusedtowithdrawhisoriginalplea.Upon
being
243

1
2
3
4

VOL.136,APRIL30,1985
243
Peoplevs.Tomotorgo
rearraigned,theaccusedenteredapleaofguilty.Heconfirmedthe
manifestations made by his counsel to the court regarding his
desiretochangehisinitialplea.Heexpressedhisrealizationofthe
gravityoftheoffensechargedagainsthimandtheconsequencesof
hisplea.Hiscounselwasthenpermittedbythecourttoestablish
themitigatingcircumstanceswhichweretheninvokedinfavorof
theaccused.
Aftertheaccusedhadtestifiedanduponhispleagiveninopen
court,thecourtbelowfoundhimguiltyofthecrimeofparricide,
but with three mitigating circumstances in his favor, namely:
voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and that he acted upon an
impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and
obfuscation.
Withtheimpositionbythecourtbelowofthepenaltyofreclusion
perpetuaonthehereinaccusedandthesubsequentdenialofhis
motionforreconsiderationofthejudgmentrenderedagainsthim,
theaccusedthroughhiscounselfiledanoticeofappealtothis
Court.
Inhisappeal,accusedarguesandcontendsthatthelowercourt
erred:
1.Indisregardingitsownfindingsoffactwhichshowedmanifest
lackofintenttokill;
2.In disregarding the provisions of Article 49 of the Revised
PenalCodewhichprescribestheproperapplicablepenaltywhere
thecrimecommittedisdifferentfromthatintended;
3.In not following the mandatory sequence of procedures for
determiningthecorrectapplicablepenalty;
4.In denying the appellant the benefits of the Indeterminate

SentenceLaw.(AppellantsBrief,pg.1,pars.14)
Wefindnomeritintheappealoftheaccusedhereinwhichassails
onlythecorrectnessofthepenaltyimposedbythetrialcourton
him.
Appellantsubmitsthatthepenaltyforthefelonycommittedbyhim
whichisparricidebeinghigherthanthatfortheoffensewhichhe
intended to commit, and which he avers to be that of physical
injuriesonly,theprovisionsofArticle49oftheRevisedPenal
Codewhichrelatetotheapplicationof
244

24
4

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Tomotorgo
penalties should have been observed and followed by the trial
court.Thesaidprovisionoflawwhichaccusedinvokesprovides
that:
ART. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime
committed is different from that intended.In cases in which the felony
committedisdifferentfromthatwhichtheoffenderintendedtocommit,the
followingrulesshallbeobserved;
1.Ifthepenaltyprescribedforthefelonycommittedbehigherthanthat
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the
penaltycorrespondingtothelattershallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiod.
xxxxxxxxx

Continuing,appellantarguesinhisappealbriefsubmittedtothis
Court,that:

xxxxxxxxx
Thefelonyactuallycommitted,parricide,hasahigherpenalty(reclusion
perpetua to death) than the felony intended, qualified physical injuries
(reclusion temporal medium and maximum). Hence, since the penalty
corresponding to the felony intended shall be imposed in its maximum
period, the prescribed penalty is therefore reclusion temporal maximum.
Thisisadivisiblepenalty.
UnderArticle64,subpar.5,ofthePenalCode.
Whentherearetwoormoremitigatingcircumstancesandnoaggravating

circumstancesarepresent,thecourtshallimposethepenaltynextlowerto
thatprescribedbylaw,intheperiodthatitmaydeemapplicable,according
tothenumberandnatureofsuchcircumstances.
The trial court itself found that the accused is entitled to three (3)
mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstances, namely:
voluntarysurrender,pleaofguilty,andobfuscation.Wesubmitthatthe
pleaofguilty,which,aswehadshownearlier,wasimprovidentlymade,
shouldnolongerbeconsidered.Thisleavesonlytwomitigatingwithno
aggravating. Sufficient compliance with the law, Hence, an automatic
loweringofthepenaltybyonedegree,ortoreclusiontemporalmedium.
Thisbeingacasewhereaperiodconstitutestheentirerangeofthepenalty
prescribed,andtherefore,alsoadegree.(AppellantsBrief,pp.89)
245

VOL.136,APRIL30,1985
245
Peoplevs.Tomotorgo
Appellantmaintainsthebeliefthatheshouldbepunishedonlyfor
theoffenseheintendedtocommitwhichheaverstobeserious
physicalinjuries,qualifiedbythefactthattheoffendedpartyishis
spouse.Pursuanttothesubparagraphofparagraph4ofArt.263
oftheRevisedPenalCodeandashiswifeisamongthepersons
mentionedinArt.246ofthesamecode,appellantcontendsthat
the penalty imposable should then be reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods. On this mistaken premise,
appellantthereforeclaimsthatthepenaltyprescribedbylawforhis
offenseisdivisibleandheshouldthusbeentitledtothebenefitsof
theIndeterminateSentenceLaw.
These contentions of the accused are manifestly untenable and
incorrect.Article4oftheRevisedPenalCodeexpresslystatesthat
criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony (delito) although the wrongful act be different from that
which he intended and that the accused is liable for all the
consequencesofhisfeloniousacts.
ThereferencemadebytheaccusedtoArticle263oftheRevised
Penal Code which prescribes graduated penalties for the

corresponding physical injuries committed is entirely misplaced

andirrelevantconsideringthatinthiscasethevictimdiedvery
soon after she was assaulted. It will be, therefore, illogical to
considerappellantsactsasfallingwithinthescopeofArticle263
oftheRevisedPenalCode.Thecrimecommittedisparricideno
less.
Weareincompleteaccordwithandwesustaintherulingmadeby
thecourtsbelowthattheaccusedisnotentitledtothebenefitsof
the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The court sustains the
submissionsoftheappelleethat
xxxArticle49oftheRevisedPenalCodedoesnotapplytocaseswhere
more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his
feloniousactbecause,underArticle4,par.1ofthesameCode,heisliable
forallthedirectandnaturalconsequencesofhistudawfulact.Hislackof
intentiontocommitsograveawrongis,atbest,mitigating(Article13,par.
3).
Article49appliesonlytocaseswherethecrimecommittedisdifferent
fromthatintendedandwherethefelonycommittedbefallsadifferentperson
(Peoplevs.Albuquerque,59Phil.150).
246

24
6

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Tomotorgo

Article246oftheRevisedPenalCodepunishedparricidewiththepenalty
ofreclusionperpetuatodeath, whicharetwoindivisiblepenalties. Asthe
commissionoftheactwasattendedbymitigatingcircumstanceswithno
aggravatingcircumstance,thelesserpenalty,whichisreclusionperpetua,
shouldbeimposed(Peoplevs.Laureano,etal.,71Phil.530;Peoplevs.
Francisco,78Phil.697;Peoplevs.Belarmino,91Phil.118)Appellees
Brief,pp.67).(Italicssupplied)

Weholdthatthefactthattheappellantintendedtomaltreatthe
victimonlyorinflictphysicalinjuriesdoesnotexempthimfrom
liabilityfortheresultingandmoreseriouscrimecommitted.Inthe
case of People vs. Climaco Demiar, 108 Phil. 651, where the
accusedthereinhadchokedhismotherinafitofangerbecausethe

latterdidnotprepareanyfoodforhim,itwasruledthatthecrime
committed by Demiar is parricide (Article 246, Revised Penal
Code),thedeceasedvictimofhiscriminalactbeinghislegitimate
mother. Said crime was declared as punishable with reclusion
perpetuatodeath.AsheldbythisCourtinthatcase,theappellant
isonlyentitledtothemitigatingcircumstanceoflackofintentto
commitsograveawrong.(Article13(3Id.)Thepenaltyimposed
on the herein accused is therefore correct in the light of the
relevantprovisionsoflawandjurisprudence.
The trial court in its consideration of this case had added a
recommendation that executive clemency be extended to the
accusedappellantafterhisserviceoftheminimumofthemedium
penalty of prision mayor. The Solicitor General likewise
concludes and prays in the Peoples Brief that in view of the
circumstances which attended the commission of the offense, a
recommendation for the commutation of the penalty would be
appropriate.(AppelleesBrief,pg.7).ThisCourtisconstrainedto
take note that the accusedappellant is said to have been in
detentionsinceJune23,1977orformorethansevenyearsalready.
ThisCourtcandonolessthanexpressitshopethattheaccused
appellantcanbenowextendedanabsoluteorconditionalpardon
bythePresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesorthattherebe
a commutation of his sentence so that he may qualify and be
eligibleforparole.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed
withoutanypronouncementastocosts.
247

VOL.136,APRIL30,1985
247
Ituriagavs.CommissiononElections
Consideringthecircumstanceswhichattendedthecommissionof
theoffense,themanifestrepentantattitudeoftheaccusedandhis
remorse for his act which even the trial court made particular
mentionofinitsdecisionandtherecommendationmadebythe

OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralaswellasthenumberofyearsthat
theaccusedappellanthadbeenimprisoned,thisCourtcandono
lessthanrecommendthatexecutiveclemencybeextendedtothe
accusedappellant, Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon, or that his
sentence be commuted so that he can now qualify and be
consideredeligibleforparole.ThisrecommendationoftheCourt
shouldbepromptlybroughttotheattentionofthePresidentofthe
Republic of the Philippines by the proper authorities in whose
custodythehereinaccusedhasbeenplaced.
Aside from this, let copy of this decision be furnished the
OfficeofthePresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesandthe
ChairmanoftheBoardofPardonsandParole.
SOORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), MelencioHerrera, Plana Relova,
Gutierrez,Jr.andDelaFuente,JJ.,concur.
Judgmentaffirmed.
o0o
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.