PEOPLE v BENITO 74 SCRA 271

FACTS:
Alberto Benito, a former employee of the Civil Service Commission, suspended for
"DISHONESTY". After 2 months, he was reinstated but was criminally charged for QUALIFIED
THEFT, MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS, ESTAFA and FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS and administratively charged for "DISHONESTY" culminating in his dismissal
from the Civil Service. According to Benito, those criminal and administrative charges filed
against him were allegedly instigated and contrived by the victim, Pedro Moncayo, Jr and since
the time of his dismissal, he was allegedly jobless. On Dec. 11, 1969, Benito went to the Civil
Service and requested Moncayo to help him in his cases but the former allegedly uttered to the
suspect "UMALIS KA NGA DIYAN and when they met again, Moncayo allegedly remarked in
the presence of many people, "NAGIISTAMBAY PALA DITO ANG MAGNANAKAW".
Benito, Course Outline in Criminal 1 Page 102 humiliated and incensed, left. At about 5:25 p.m.
of that same day, Benito who was armed with an unlicensed black revolver waited for the victim
outside the Civil Service compound. The victim showed up and drove his car. Benito followed
him and when Moncayo‘s car was at a full stop due to heavy traffic, Benito without any warning
or provocation, suddenly and treacherously shot the victim 8 times on the head and different parts
of the body.
Benito was sentenced to death by the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila after he pleaded
guilty to the charge of murder for having shot, with a .22 caliber revolver, Moncayo, Jr. The killing
was qualified by treachery and aggravated by premeditation and disregard of rank. It was mitigated
by plea of guilty.
Benito filed a motion for reconsideration.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:
He contends that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of
a grave offense and that the aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank should not be
appreciated against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Benito is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication
of offense.
HELD:
Assuming that Moncayo's remark was directed at Benito, the see no justification under the
circumstances recited above for changing the prior opinion that the mitigating circumstance of
"haber ejecutado el hecho en vindicacion proxima de una ofensa grave, causada al autor del delito,"
cannot be appreciated in Benito's favor. As aptly stated by the ponente, Justice Esguerra, Benito
"had more than sufficient time to suppress his emotion over said remark if he ever did resent it."
The 6-hour interval between the alleged grave offense committed by Moncayo against Benito and
the assassination was more than sufficient to enable Benito to recover his serenity. But instead of
using that time to regain his composure, he evolved the plan of liquidating Moncayo after office
hours. Benito literally ambushed Moncayo just a few minutes after the victim had left the office.
He acted with treachery and evident premeditation in perpetrating the cold-blooded murder. The
facts of the case strongly suggest that what really impelled Benito to assassinate Moncayo was not
the latter's alleged defamatory remark that the Civil Service Commission compound was a hangout
for a thief or for thieves but the refusal of Moncayo to change his report so as to favor Benito.
Benito did not act primarily to vindicate an alleged grave offense to himself but mainly to chastise
Moncayo for having exposed the alleged anomalies or defraudation committed by Benito and for
obstinately refusing to change his report.