PEOPLE V REAL (Reiteracion)
FACTS:
On March 17, 1978, 9:00 AM in the public market of Aroroy, Masbate, the appellant and Edgardo Corpus, both
vendors, engaged in a heated argument over the right to use the market table to display their fish. The Municipal
Mayor, Moreno de la Rosa, tried to pacify them, saying that they were arguing over trivial matters. They kept
their peace but after a while Corpus raised his voice again and said something to appellant. The latter, in a soft
voice, uttered (You are being too oppressive). When Corpus kept on walking to and from near the disputed fish
table, appellant started to sharpen his bolo while murmuring to himself. Once Corpus turned around with his
back towards appellant, the latter hacked him on the nape. The blow caused Corpus to collapse. He was rushed
to a medical clinic. When asked by his wife as to who hacked him, he answered "Melchor Real." A police
investigator went to the clinic to take the dying declaration of Corpus, who said that it was appellant who
stabbed him. Corpus died two days later. Appellant 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. The appellant argues
that the crime committed was only homicide and not murder and that he is entitled to two mitigating
circumstances: namely, passion and obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense.
A police investigator went to the clinic to take the dying declaration of Corpus, who said that it was
appellant who stabbed him. Corpus died two days later.
RTC RULING
The court found Melchor Real guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
The accused is a recidivist having been convicted by the Municipal Court of Aroroy, in the followingcases:
Crime Date of Conviction
1. Ill treatment by Deed — July 6, 1965
2. Grave Threats — November 25, 1968
(Rollo, p. 14).
Upon being arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court and the Solicitor General are in error when they held that the attendant
aggravating circumstance was reiteracion and not reincidencia
Appellant 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
Treachery is not appreciated because 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 by walking to and from the appellant in taunting manner while he sharpening his bolo
Appellant also claims that he is entitled to two mitigating circumstances: vindication of a grave offense
and passion and obfuscation
- However, two mitigating circumstances cannot be applied at the same time if they arise from the same
facts or motive.
- The act of the victim in berating and humiliating appellant was enough to produce passion and
obfuscation
*If appellant attacked his victim in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he cannot successfully
claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and obfuscation.
RULING
The trial court and the Solicitor General erred that the attendant aggravating circumstance was reiteracion and
not reincidencia
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 (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14).
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
- Previously convicted of ill-treatment by deed (Revised Penal Code, Art. 266, Title Eight)
-and grave threats (Revised Penal Code, Art. 282, Title Nine)
- He was convicted of homicide in the instant criminal case (Revised Penal Code, Art. 249, Title Eight)
The aggravating circumstance to be appreciated against him is recidivism rather than reiteracion
There is no reiteracion because that circumstance requires that the previous offenses should not be
embraced in the same title of the Code
-Even 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.
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.
