8Roberto Licyayo vs. People

GR No. 169425 | March 4, 2008

Petitioner invokes mitigating circumstances a.) Sufficient provocation and b.) Intoxication

FACTS.On February 16, 1992, after attending a wedding, Rufino Guay, along with his friends, Jeffrey Malingan and Joel Dumangeng, went to Natama’s Store in a public market to drink some gin. Shortly thereafter, petitioner Roberto Licyayo, Paul Baguilat and Oliver Buyayo arrived at the same store and likewise ordered gin. Later, Roberto’s group left the store. Subsequently, Rufino’s group also adjourned their drinking session and dropped by another store wherein, incidentally, Roberto’s group is also present together with his brother Aron Licyayo. A brawl suddenly ensued between Rufino and Aron, Rufino fell to the ground, Aron then placed himself on top of Rufino and punched him several times. Jeffrey approached to stop the two but Paul punched him on the head.Police officers Joseph Danglay, Miguel Buyayo, and Alfonso Baguilat immediately rushed to the scene and saw petitioner Roberto holding a 6-inch double bladed knife and walking towards Rufino and Aron who were still wrestling with each other. Officer Buyayo attempted to stop Roberto to no avail. Roberto proceeded and stabbed Rufino in different parts of the body which caused his death later on.

Petitioner Roberto claims that there was sufficient provocation on Rufino’s part for having attacked his brother Aron Licyayo. The defense’s version of the incident was that Rufino grabbed Aron’s collar and punched his left cheek and as the latter was lying on the ground, Rufino and Jeffrey continued to punch him. Roberto pushed Jeffrey but was overpowered and could not recall anymore the subsequent events that transpired. He also claims that he was intoxicated during the commission of the crime.

ISSUE.WON petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation and intoxication.

HELD.The Court ruled that petitioner Roberto cannot invoke the MC of sufficient provocation because records cannot sufficiently establish who between Rufino and Aron started the brawl. There was no evidence as to how the quarrel arose. What is evident is that Rufino and Aron suddenly and unexpectedly grappled.

Petitioner is also not entitled to the MC of intoxication. As a rule, it must be shown that the intoxication impaired the willpower of the accused and that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. The person pleading intoxication must prove that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason. In the case at bar, it was not established that the amount of alcohol consumed was enough to impair his reason and affect his mental faculties. On the contrary, the petitioner can even vividly recall the details that transpired during and after his drinking session with his friends. That is the best proof that he still knew what he was doing despite the alcohol he consumed.