United States vs. Reyes

The mitigating circumstance of "lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong" under Article 9(3) of the Penal Code requires a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed and the resulting injury. When the means used are adequate to produce the resulting harm, the circumstance cannot be appreciated.

The case arose from a homicide committed during a personal dispute. The defendant killed a soldier using a baston (stick) during a quarrel over a game of cards.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (predecessor to the RTC).
• The trial court found the defendant guilty of homicide and sentenced him to reclusion temporal.
• The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

• The defendant, Vicente Reyes, killed Guiseppe Goggiano, a soldier of the U.S. Army.
• The killing occurred during a quarrel over a game of cards.
• The implement used was a baston (stick).
• The defendant struck the soldier on the head with the baston.
• The trial court found the defendant did not act in self-defense and found no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

• The appellant (defendant) assigned one error: the trial court erred in not finding in his favor the mitigating circumstance No. 3 of Article 9 of the Penal Code — that the offender had no intention to cause so great a wrong as that committed.

• The appellee (represented by the Acting Attorney-General) argued, relying on collated Spanish decisions, that the means employed (a blow to the head with a stick) were adequate and proportionate to cause death, thus the mitigating circumstance could not apply.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the mitigating circumstance of "lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong" under Article 9(3) of the Penal Code should be appreciated in favor of the appellant.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The SC denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The SC held that the mitigating circumstance could not be appreciated because the means employed (a blow to the head with a baston) were adequate to produce the resulting death. The nature of the weapon and the target (the head) made the resulting evil proportional to the act.

• Mitigating Circumstance of "Lack of Intent to Commit So Grave a Wrong" (Art. 9, No. 3, Revised Penal Code) — This circumstance applies when there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed by the offender and the resulting injury. The SC, citing multiple Spanish decisions, applied the doctrine by ruling that the intention of the offender is judged by the proportion between the means used and the evil produced. If the means are adequate to cause the result, the circumstance is not applicable.

• "The intention of the agent, as an internal act and of his own conscience, cannot be revealed in any other manner than by the external and overt acts which may accompany that intention..."
• "Circumstance No. 3 of article 9 can only be considered when the facts proven show that there exists notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequence."

• The SC primarily cited multiple decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain (dated from 1876 to 1905) to establish the controlling interpretation of Article 9, No. 3 of the Spanish Penal Code, which was then in force in the Philippines. These decisions uniformly held that the mitigating circumstance requires a disproportion between the means and the result.

• Article 9, No. 3 of the Penal Code (then in force) — The provision enumerating the mitigating circumstance: "That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed."