THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE, defendants.
AVELINA JAURIGUE, appellant.

FACTS:

- Avelina Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Capina lived in the barrio of Sta. Isabel, City of San
Pablo, Province of Laguna.
- prior to the stabbing of the deceased by defendant, AMADO was courting JAURIGE in vain.
- September 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a dog under her house, Victim confessed his
love. Jaurige refused but the Victim kissed her and touch her breast, the former slapped
Amado, gave him fist blows and kicked him.
- September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed up the house of defendant and appellant,
and surreptitiously entered the room where she was sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently
with the intention of abusing her, She immediately screamed for help, which awakened her
parents and brought them to her side
- September 20, 1942, Avelina received information that Amado had been falsely boasting in the
neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person and that she had even asked him
to elope
- Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father, also for the purpose of
attending religious services
- Amado Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side, and,
without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper
part of her right thigh
- Avelina Jaurigue pulled out with her right hand the fan knife marked Exhibit B with the intention of
punishing Amado's offending hand.
- Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and
stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck killing the latter.

Issue: What are the mitigating circumstances present?

Held: homicide, with at least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be

considered in her favor and, in accordance with the provisions of article 69 of the Revised Penal
Code, she is entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her.
Consequently, with the modification of judgment appealed from, defendant and appellant Avelina
Jaurigue is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as
maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Amado Capina, in the sum of P2,000, and to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, not
to exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty, in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs

MITIGATING CIRCMUSTANCE

1. Immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few moments before.
2. Upon such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation or temporary loss of
reason and self-control.
3. Voluntary surrender to Barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada.
4. ART. 13 (1), incomplete self defense. Lack of reasonbale necessity of means employed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer and
Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during
the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house
and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and
found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house and
asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go
ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who
was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the
shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle with
the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time
of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to
Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his

property from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25,
defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent.
He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after
letter. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. CFI ruled that
Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages. The rest of the incident is narrated in the
People's Brief as above-quoted. Appellant surrendered to the police thereafter, bringing with him
shotgun No. 1119576 and claiming he shot two persons
ISSUE: What are the mitigating circumstances present?
HELD:
Guilty of two crimes of homicide only, extenuated by the privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete defense-in view of the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victims and
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant-and by two generic mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation.

MITIGATING CIRCMUSTANCE

1. passion and obfuscation attended the commission of the crime. The appellant awoke to find
his house being damaged and its accessibility to the highway as well as of his rice mill bodega
being closed. Not only was his house being unlawfully violated; his business was also in
danger of closing down for lack of access to the highway.
2. Appellant surrendered to the police thereafter, bringing with him shotgun No. 1119576 and
claiming he shot two persons.