 |
Juan Luna was a man of violent temper. He suspected his wife of infidelity, and when his wife and mother-in-law locked themselves in a room to escape his anger, he shot them both and killed them.He was acquitted of his crime of passion, and the assassination of his brother contributed to his death by heart attack at the age of 42 in Hong Kong on his way to join the Revolution in 1899.
In
a “crime of passion”, a person commits a crime against a spouse or
loved one, or another person, because of anger or heartbreak. When a
person becomes very jealous or disappointed, it can produce such strong
emotions that he cannot think... rationally and may act on his
impulses without thinking about the consequences.the Philippine justice
system considers “having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation” a circumstance that
mitigates criminal liability. Not only that, but Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code expressly provides that if a person catches his
spouse in flagrante delicto with another person and kills one or both
of them as a consequence, he shall only suffer the penalty of
destierro, or exile, and this only to protect him from the vengeance of
the relatives of his victims. This provision, which makes the
Philippines one of the few jurisdictions which recognize the “crime of
passion” defense, is a holdover from the old Spanish Penal Code, which
was in force in the Philippines from 1886 to 1930, a revised form of
which became the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
|
Monday, September 23, 2013
September 22, 1892, Juan Luna killed his wife Paz and mother in law Juliana Gorricho Pardo de Tavera
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
hello, why was he considered as a hero? I've been wondering because someone asked me, why can we accept Luna as a national hero when he killed his wife and we can't accept Marcos? Please reply thank you! :)
ReplyDeleteAntonio Luna is the one being considered a hero not Juan Luna
Deletemaybe juan became a hero not for his crime but rather to the painting he has created that brought honor to the country
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne has to look at the transcripts of the September, 1892 trial of Juan Luna. There was enough evidence to point that Juan Luna's action that he invoked Art. 324 of the French Penal Code of 1810, justifying the murder of an unfaithful wife and her lover at the hand of her husband,[14] though only "at the moment" when the wife and her lover were "[caught] in the fact" by the husband in the matrimonial home. Juan Luna, a rising figure in the European art world, had been insulted and dishonoured through the illicit affair between his wife, Maria de la Paz and Chavalier Christophe Maurice Dussaq. My question is, he did not catch the lovers "en flagrante delicto" why did the French courts acquit him? The courts not only relied on the eye witness accounts of a Madame Charlot, who was the concierge at the apartment covertly rented by Mr. Dussaq, who had bedded numerous conquests in that parlour, but it was also a time when the French was struggling with the notion of liberalism and racism. Juan Luna was an indio and non-white. His wife was considered a caucasian (and "white"). The courts didn't want to branded as handing out a decision that would have racist overtures.
ReplyDelete