95. People v. Melchor Real
G.R. No. 93436 | Mar. 24, 1995 | Quiason, J. | Estioko
TOPIC: Habituality (Reiteracion)
FACTS:
1. There was a heated argument between Real and Corpus. The
argument is about the right to use the market table to display
their fish.
2. The Mayor, who happened to be in the market, was able to
pacify them. However, after a while, Corpus raised his voice
and said something to Real.
3. When Corpus was walking to and from near the fish table, Real
started to sharpen his bolo while murmuring to himself.
4. When Corpus turned around with his back, Real hacked him
on the nape.
5. Real admitted hacking Corpus but claimed that he did so out
of humiliation and anger when the victim threw his fish in the
presence of so many people.
6. The information against him states “… accused Is a recidivist
having been convicted of the crime Ill treatment by Deed on
July 6, 1965 and Grave threats on Nov. 25, 1968.”
7. During trial, Real admitted that he hacked Corpus.
8. The trial court held, and the Solicitor General agreed, that
the attendant aggravating circumstance was reiteracion and
not reincidencia as alleged in the information.
9. Before the SC, Real is arguing that he only committed
homicide and not murder.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Real committed homicide or murder – Homicide
2. Whether the attending circumstance was reiteracion or
reincidencia? – reincidencia
HELD:
1.
 As a rule, a sudden attack, whether frontally or from behind,
is treachery. The rule does not apply, however, where the
attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was
just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the
accused because of the provocative act of the victim
 This is more so, where the assault upon the victim was
preceded by a heated exchange of words between him and the
accused
2.
 In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have
been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code
 in reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished
previously for an offense to which the law attaches an equal
or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty
 Unlike in reincidencia, the offender in reiteracion commits a
crime different in kind from that for which he was previously
tried and convicted
 There is no reiteracion because that circumstance requires
that the previous offenses should not be embraced in the
same title of the Code. While grave threats fall in title (Title
Nine) different from homicide (Title Eight),
still reiteracion cannot be appreciated because such
aggravating circumstance requires that if there is only one
prior offense, that offense must be punishable by an equal or
greater penalty than the one for which the accused has been
convicted.
 Likewise, the prosecution has to prove that the offender has
been punished for the previous offense. There is no evidence
presented by the prosecution to that effect.