Vindication of Grave Offense | Is it Ever Right?

In the field of criminal law, an event that lessens the gravity of a crime is referred to as a “mitigating circumstance.” One of which, as recognized by law, is vindication of grave offense. In a nutshell, this could be a reaction to grave harm by demonstrating that he or she was acting out to vindicate what had been done to him or his family. It is a form of retaliation in which the offender believes he is justified or correct in doing so.

“The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”¹ We do our best to live this state policy. But what if, despite being good, not harming anyone, doing your best to respect other people’s rights, someone gravely injures us, or our loved ones?

Have you ever felt that strong rage and resentment that clouds your judgment from doing what is right because all you can think about is the grave offense that you or your loved ones have suffered?

The Law | Vindication of Grave Offense

Article 13, par. 5, Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides as a mitigating circumstance:

“That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.”²

A mitigating circumstance, when present in a crime, reduces the penalty of the accused because of lesser criminal perversity.

Elements for immediate vindication of grave offense

For such act to be appreciated as mitigating circumstance, the following two elements must concur:

• That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees; and

The grave offense done may be against the listed relatives above, not only against the person committing the felony.

In the case of Napone vs. People G.R. No. 193085 | 2017-11-29, the Napones were informed that Calib was dragged by the Espelitas. Upon seeing Calib bloody, prostrate on the ground and possibly clinging for dear life, the Napones were filled with resentment that resulted in the assault on Salvador. Their acts, therefore, were committed in vindication of a grave offense against their brother.

The determination whether a certain personal offense is grave shall be decided by the court, having in mind the social standing of the person, the place, and the time when the insult was made.³

The following are examples of grave offenses as decided by the Court:

1] Scornful remark.⁴

2] Ridiculing remark in an event before the guests that the accused lived at the expense of his wife. The place was taken into consideration in this case.⁵

3] Where the injured party insulted the father of the accused.⁶

• That the felony is committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense.

The Spanish text of the RPC, which uses the word proxima, allows a lapse of time between the grave offense and the actual vindication.

In the case of US vs. Davis,⁷ the accused killing his wife’s paramour was prompted proximately – though not immediately – by the desire to avenge the wrong done. This was considered an extenuating circumstance in favor of the accused. There was no sufficient lapse of time between the offense and the alleged reason for vindication.

The accused, in this case, has not had enough moment to regain tranquility. An adequate period of time must not have passed for the accused to have calmed down for this mitigating circumstance to be taken into account.

In the case of People vs. June Ignas y Sanggino,⁸ the Supreme Court ruled that:

“The lapse of two (2) weeks between his discovery of his wife’s infidelity and the killing of her supposed paramour could no longer be considered proximate. The passage of a fortnight is more than sufficient time for appellant to have recovered his composure and assuaged the unease in his mind.⁹

“The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his serenity. Thus, in this case, we hold that the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be considered in appellant’s favor.”⁹

Mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense, and passion and obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they arise from the same facts or motive.

Only one of the two circumstances may be appreciated at the same time, if they arise from the same facts or motive.

“If appellant attacked his victim in proximate vindication of a grave offense, he could no longer claim in the same breath that passion and obfuscation also blinded him…the period of two (2) weeks which spanned the discovery of his wife’s extramarital dalliance and the killing of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to reflect and cool off.”⁹

Summary

All of the elements must be present for immediate vindication of a grave offense in order for the court to appreciate this as a mitigating circumstance. These elements are:

1) that there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees; and

2) that the felony is committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense. Immediate vindication means proximate where the allowed elapsed time must not be sufficient to recover serenity, a time to reflect and cool off.

Furthermore, immediate vindication of a grave offense may not be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in addition to passion and obfuscation. Only one of these two circumstances may be appreciated at the same time, if they arise from the same facts or motive. Vindication of a grave offense incompatible with passion or obfuscation. They cannot be counted separately or independently.¹⁰

Conclusion

Vindication, is it ever right? The law gives leeway for immediate vindication of a grave offense, not only against one’s self, but to aforementioned relatives as well. It provides a lower penalty because of the clouded judgment resulting from the grave offense. The law understands but it does not give free reign for committing a felony. At the end of the day, a wrong is not corrected by another wrong. A life lost may not be revived by another life that is taken.

1. Art. II Sec. 11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution[↩]
2. Article 13, Paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code[↩]
3. People vs. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. L-33604-05, October 30, 1979[↩]
4. People vs. Batiquin, C.A., 40 O.G. 987[↩]
5. People vs. Rosel, G.R. No. 46095, October 10, 1938[↩]
6. People vs. David, G.R. Nos. L-39708 and L-39709, April 16, 1934[↩]
7. G.R. No. 4340. August 15, 1908[↩]
8. G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003[↩]
9. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩]
10. People vs. Dagatan, G.R. No. L-10851, August 28, 1959[↩]