PP v DALAG

Armando Dalag, a police from PNP Bacolod, was married to Leah w/ 2 kids.
Husband & Wife always quarreled, with Leah being beat up constantly.
It came to a point where her father (Marcos) intervened, but Armando poked a gun at Leah
and then to Marcos
The incident happened when their children, Francis and Joy, both pre-teens, were watching
TV inside the house
Armando and Leah were by the tree outside the house. Leah was scolding Armando for
drinking hard drinks
The kids sensed that some object was being banged on the wall. Thereafter, they heard
their mother cry.
The children saw their father pushing and kicking Leah on the left side of her body. She fell
to the ground.
He grabbed Leahs hair and continued to bang her head on the wall. Armando accidentally
stepped on a nail.
Leah then fled to the house of their neighbor, Tia Feli but Armando herded her back to the
house.
The daughter Princess was awakened when she heard her mother crying. When she went
outside of the house, she saw her mother being pushed by her father. Leah fell to the ground
and lost consciousness.
Princess got water from inside the house and poured it on Leah, but she stayed lifeless.
She woke her brother Francis, who went outside as well. They noticed the her numerous
injuries.
The next day, they still went to school despite their mothers condition. When they came
home, Armando told them that their mother was brought to the hospital. Armando instructed
Francis to inform his colleagues at the police HQ that he would not report for duty because
his wife accidentally slipped and had to be brought to the hospital.
Leah never regained her consciousness. She died on August 22, 1996.
When station commander SPO3 Garcia, learned of Leahs death, he ordered Armando not
to leave the police station. But Armando left without Garcias knowledge and permission.
However, 5 days later, he surrendered.
The medico-legal autopsy report revealed that Leah suffered severe beatings resulting in
intracranial hemorrhage which caused her death.
Defense: Armando denied and claimed family differences (He was catholic while Leahs
family was Mormon)
He concocted a story about how he stepped on a nail, his wife went to the neighbor to get
meds, but she tripped and fell so hard that it led to her death.
On the other hand, kids told the true story of what transpired. Armandos defense: his kids
NOT credible witnesses
[RTC] found him guilty for parricide and sentenced to RP, mitigated by Voluntary Surrender
and Obfuscation.

ISSUE: Straight to SC. W/N he is guilty of Parricide

The testimonies of Francis and Princess, who are of tender age, innocent and guileless,
pointing to their father as the person responsible for the death of their mother deserve full
faith and credence considering that witness testimonies against blood relatives would not
impute a heinous crime if such were not the truth.

The childrens testimonies are supported by the findings of the neuro surgeon and Dr. Cruel
of the CHR. What stood out were the lumps on her neck, which somewhat hint of
strangulation.

ART. 246. Parricide. Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide
and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. (Restored by Sec. 5, RA No.
7659.)

The prosecution must prove ff elements: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by
the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of
the accused. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the
victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship is the marriage
certificate. In this case, the prosecution proved all the essential elements of parricide.
The trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in
favor of the appellant. But erred in applying passion and obfuscation. There being one
mitigating circumstance in favor of the appellant and no aggravating circumstance against
him, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed