Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Pagal et al pled guilty to the crime of robbery with homicide, on the condition that they be allowed to
explain their mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat. The CFI heard them but
nevertheless convicted them. SC affirmed the conviction. Sufficient provocation or threat is not present in
this case.
Pagal and Torcelino were employees of Gau Guan. In 1969, they robbed Guan of his “kaha de yero”
containing cash amounting to P1,281. They also killed Guan by stabbing him with an icepick and clubbing
him with an iron pipe.
At trial, their counsel informed the court of their intention to plead guilty, on the condition that they be
allowed to prove the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat.
The judge questioned the two on their intention, and after satisfying himself that both accused actually
understood that pleading guilty would be in fact admitting to the crime, the accused were both arraigned.
The
that mitigating circumstance
Gau Guan had repeatedlythey tried to them.
maltreated pass off as sufficient provocation or threat was the occurrence
CFI did not give credence to the allegation. Attendant aggravating circumstances, all of which were
admitted, such as nighttime, evident premeditation, disregard of the respect due the offended party, and
abuse of confidence (both were employees of Guan), the judge sentenced them to death.
:
Should the mitigating circumstance be appreciated? No, sufficient provocation or threat is NOT present.