ASG Law

Tag: Sufficient Provocation

  • Striking the Balance: When Self-Defense Claims Fall Short in Philippine Law

    In Isidro Miranda v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Isidro Miranda for frustrated homicide, underscoring the stringent requirements for a successful self-defense claim. The Court held that Miranda failed to demonstrate the presence of unlawful aggression from the victim, Winardo Pilo, and that his actions were disproportionate to the perceived threat. This decision reinforces the principle that self-defense must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, particularly the element of imminent danger to one’s life.

    Stones, Bolos, and the Boundaries of Self-Defense: Who Started It Isn’t Always the Deciding Factor

    The case began on August 14, 2011, in Barangay Binonoan, Infanta, Quezon, when Winardo Pilo, after attending a party, threw stones at Isidro Miranda’s house. Miranda, armed with a bolo, confronted Pilo, leading to a violent encounter where Pilo sustained serious injuries. Miranda claimed self-defense, arguing that he acted to protect himself and his family from Pilo’s aggression. This claim led to a reverse trial, where Miranda had to prove his innocence. The trial court found Miranda guilty of frustrated homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which, however, appreciated the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case to determine whether Miranda’s guilt for frustrated homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that in frustrated homicide cases, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the victim. This intent is often inferred from the weapon used, the nature of the wounds, and the circumstances surrounding the attack. Here, the Court found that Miranda’s intent to kill Pilo was evident, considering he used a bolo and inflicted multiple deep wounds. The hacking wound to Pilo’s head, coupled with additional injuries to his forearm, demonstrated a clear resolve to end Pilo’s life. These injuries were not minor and could have resulted in death without timely medical intervention.

    Regarding Miranda’s self-defense claim, the Court reiterated that when an accused invokes self-defense, they admit to committing the act but argue it was justified. Consequently, the burden shifts to the accused to prove the elements of self-defense: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The most critical element is **unlawful aggression**, which requires an actual, imminent, and unlawful attack that puts the accused’s life in real danger. The Court noted that Pilo’s act of throwing stones at Miranda’s house did not constitute unlawful aggression against Miranda himself. The stones hit the house, not Miranda, and there was no direct threat to his life.

    The Court highlighted a critical point: **imminent unlawful aggression** means the attack is impending or about to happen, not a mere threatening attitude. The facts indicated that Miranda himself believed Pilo was approaching to make peace, undermining any claim of imminent danger. Furthermore, even if Pilo had bent down to pick up a stone, this action alone did not pose a life-threatening risk to Miranda. Miranda’s act of hacking Pilo multiple times, especially when Pilo was defenseless, was deemed excessive and unjustified. This disproportionate response negated the element of reasonable necessity in self-defense.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of retaliation versus self-defense, citing People v. Dulin, which clarified that if the initial aggression has ceased, any subsequent action is considered retaliation, not self-defense. In Miranda’s case, even if Pilo was the initial aggressor, he had stopped throwing stones when Miranda attacked him with the bolo. Therefore, Miranda’s actions constituted retaliation, driven by an intent to harm rather than a lawful desire to defend himself. The Court found that Miranda could have remained safely inside his house, but instead, he chose to confront Pilo with a bolo. This decision indicated that the means employed by Miranda were not reasonably commensurate with the perceived threat, solidifying the rejection of his self-defense claim.

    Despite rejecting the self-defense claim, the Court acknowledged that Pilo’s act of throwing stones constituted sufficient provocation. Although not rising to the level of unlawful aggression, Pilo’s actions were vexatious and incited Miranda’s anger. The Court referenced Gotis v. People, stating that an act insufficient for self-defense could still be considered sufficient provocation to mitigate the crime. Because Miranda’s family was present and likely frightened, the provocation was deemed adequate. Thus, the Court factored in the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.

    The Court then addressed the appropriate penalty, noting that the crime committed was frustrated homicide, which carries a penalty one degree lower than reclusion temporal. Considering the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, the penalty was further adjusted. The CA’s imposed penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years of prision mayor, as maximum, was affirmed, aligning with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. However, the Court modified the damages awarded to conform with the prevailing jurisprudence, as established in People v. Jugueta. The new amounts included Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php 50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php 50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all subject to a legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Isidro Miranda acted in self-defense when he hacked Winardo Pilo with a bolo after Pilo threw stones at Miranda’s house. The court examined if Miranda was justified in his actions based on the elements of self-defense.
    What is unlawful aggression? Unlawful aggression is a critical element of self-defense, requiring an actual, imminent, and unlawful attack that poses a real threat to one’s life or safety. It’s not just a threatening attitude but an offensive and positively strong act.
    Why was Miranda’s self-defense claim rejected? Miranda’s claim was rejected because Pilo’s act of throwing stones at the house did not constitute unlawful aggression against Miranda himself. Also, the force Miranda used (bolo hacking) was disproportionate to the threat posed by Pilo (throwing stones).
    What is the difference between self-defense and retaliation? Self-defense occurs when the aggression is still ongoing, while retaliation happens after the aggression has ceased. In this case, the court determined that Miranda’s actions were retaliation since Pilo had already stopped throwing stones.
    What is sufficient provocation, and how did it apply to this case? Sufficient provocation is any unjust or improper conduct that incites a person to commit a wrong. In this case, Pilo’s act of throwing stones was deemed sufficient provocation, mitigating Miranda’s liability, even though it didn’t justify self-defense.
    What damages was Miranda ordered to pay? Miranda was ordered to pay Winardo Pilo Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php 50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php 50,000.00 as exemplary damages, with a legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum until full payment.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, convicting Isidro Miranda of frustrated homicide, but modified the amount of damages awarded to the victim, Winardo Pilo, to align with current jurisprudence.
    What is the practical implication of this case? This case illustrates the importance of proving all elements of self-defense and the principle that the response must be proportionate to the threat. It emphasizes that merely feeling threatened is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

    This case serves as a clear reminder of the burden of proof in self-defense claims and the importance of proportionality in responding to perceived threats. The ruling underscores that while individuals have the right to defend themselves, the defense must be reasonable and justified under the law.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019

  • Provocation vs. Aggression: Distinguishing Mitigating Circumstances in Homicide Cases

    The Supreme Court clarifies that ‘sufficient provocation’ can be a mitigating circumstance in homicide, even if self-defense is not proven. This means that an act by the victim, though not qualifying as ‘unlawful aggression’ for self-defense, can still reduce the accused’s culpability if it incited the crime. Understanding this distinction is crucial for assessing criminal liability and ensuring fair application of the law, impacting sentencing and potential penalties faced by the accused.

    When Words Ignite Violence: Understanding the Nuances of Provocation

    In Nemrod Gotis v. People of the Philippines, the central issue revolves around whether the actions of the deceased, Serafin Gotis, constituted sufficient provocation to mitigate the criminal liability of Nemrod Gotis for homicide. The case stems from an altercation where Nemrod, after initially advising Serafin to leave, pursued and fatally wounded him. The lower courts grappled with whether Serafin’s prior actions, though not justifying self-defense, could still be considered as provocation. This distinction is vital because it affects the severity of the sentence imposed on Nemrod. To fully understand this, we must delve into the facts, the court’s reasoning, and the implications of this decision.

    The narrative begins with Nemrod and his brother looking for Serafin, armed with bolos, and threatening Serafin’s family. Upon Serafin’s return, and being informed of what happened, he confronted them, and after a heated exchange, Serafin attempted to hack Nemrod. Nemrod, after retreating into his brother’s house, emerged and fatally wounded Serafin as he fled. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially appreciated the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this, arguing that it was inconsistent with the rejection of self-defense.

    The Supreme Court, however, clarified the distinct nature of these two concepts. Unlawful aggression, as an element of self-defense, requires an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger. On the other hand, sufficient provocation, as a mitigating circumstance, encompasses any unjust or improper conduct or act of the victim that is adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong, proportionate in gravity. This nuanced interpretation allows for an act to be considered provocation, even if it does not meet the stringent requirements of unlawful aggression. The court quoted key jurisprudence on the matter:

    In order to determine the sufficiency of a provocation for the purpose of mitigating a crime, one must look into the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person provoked, and the place and time when the provocation is made.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the CA erred in equating sufficient provocation with unlawful aggression. The court highlighted that while Serafin’s initial attack did not justify Nemrod’s subsequent actions in self-defense, it did constitute sufficient provocation to mitigate his culpability. The court drew from previous cases, such as Pepito v. CA, where a victim’s violent actions, though not justifying self-defense, were deemed sufficient provocation. Furthermore, the court in Romero v. People, recognized that threatening actions could constitute sufficient provocation, even if they did not amount to unlawful aggression.

    In light of these precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that Serafin’s attempt to hack Nemrod was indeed enough provocation to anger Nemrod and cause him to retaliate. Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation was deemed applicable. This led to a modification of the penalty imposed on Nemrod, reinstating the original prison term set by the trial court. By distinguishing between unlawful aggression and sufficient provocation, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of considering the totality of circumstances in determining criminal liability and ensuring a just outcome.

    The ruling serves as a reminder that criminal culpability is not always black and white. There exist shades of gray where actions, though not fully excusable, are understandable given the circumstances. The concept of mitigating circumstances allows courts to consider these nuances and tailor penalties accordingly. In the context of homicide, this means considering the victim’s behavior leading up to the crime. Did the victim provoke the accused? Was the response proportionate? These are critical questions that can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

    The practical implications of this ruling extend beyond the specific facts of the Gotis case. It establishes a clear precedent for future cases involving claims of self-defense and provocation. Defense attorneys can now argue more effectively for the consideration of mitigating circumstances, even when self-defense claims fall short. Prosecutors, on the other hand, must be prepared to address the issue of provocation and present evidence to negate its applicability. The court’s decision underscores the need for a thorough and nuanced examination of the events leading up to a crime, ensuring that justice is served fairly and equitably.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the victim’s actions constituted sufficient provocation to mitigate the accused’s criminal liability for homicide, even though self-defense was not justified.
    What is the difference between unlawful aggression and sufficient provocation? Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden attack, while sufficient provocation includes any unjust act that could incite a proportionate response. Unlawful aggression is used in self-defense claims, while provocation is a mitigating circumstance.
    Why did the Court of Appeals reverse the trial court’s decision? The Court of Appeals believed that the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation was incompatible with the rejection of self-defense. They failed to distinguish between the two legal concepts.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court ruled that sufficient provocation did exist, modifying the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the trial court’s original sentence.
    What does this ruling mean for future cases? This ruling sets a precedent for considering mitigating circumstances, even when self-defense claims are not fully supported, impacting sentencing outcomes.
    What factors are considered when determining sufficient provocation? The court considers the nature of the act, the social standing of the provoked person, and the context of the provocation. The gravity of the response must also be proportionate to the provocation.
    Can words alone constitute sufficient provocation? Yes, threats, insults, or other verbal actions can be considered sufficient provocation if they are serious enough to incite a violent response.
    Does this decision mean that self-defense and provocation can never coexist? No, in some cases, the same act might be relevant to both a self-defense claim (if unlawful aggression is present) and as a source of provocation. However, they are distinct legal concepts.

    In conclusion, Gotis v. People highlights the importance of distinguishing between unlawful aggression and sufficient provocation in criminal law. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that mitigating circumstances should be carefully considered to ensure a just and equitable outcome in homicide cases.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Nemrod Gotis v. People, G.R. No. 157201, September 14, 2007

  • Mitigating Circumstances in Homicide: How Philippine Courts Reduce Penalties

    When Emotions and Circumstances Lessen Culpability: Understanding Mitigating Circumstances in Philippine Homicide Cases

    In the heat of the moment, actions can have devastating consequences. Philippine law recognizes that not all killings are driven by pure malice, and circumstances surrounding a crime can lessen the offender’s culpability. This was highlighted in the case of Felipe Navarro, a policeman convicted of homicide. This case provides a crucial understanding of how mitigating circumstances, like sufficient provocation and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, can significantly impact sentencing in homicide cases in the Philippines. Navarro’s sentence was reduced due to these factors, even while his conviction for homicide was upheld. This article delves into the nuances of mitigating circumstances in homicide, drawing lessons from the Navarro case and offering practical insights.

    G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999: Felipe Navarro v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a heated argument escalating into violence, ending in tragedy. This grim scenario is the reality behind many homicide cases. Philippine criminal law, while firm in punishing unlawful killings, acknowledges the complexities of human behavior. The case of *Felipe Navarro v. Court of Appeals* illustrates this principle. Navarro, a policeman, was found guilty of homicide for the death of a radio reporter, Ike Lingan, following an altercation at a police station. The Supreme Court, while affirming Navarro’s guilt, significantly reduced his sentence by appreciating mitigating circumstances. The central legal question revolved around the extent to which provocation by the victim and the lack of intent to inflict such grave harm could lessen Navarro’s punishment. This case serves as a vital example of how Philippine courts consider not just the act itself, but also the circumstances and the offender’s state of mind when determining criminal liability and penalties in homicide cases.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: HOMICIDE AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PHILIPPINES

    Homicide, defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, is the unlawful killing of another person without qualifying circumstances like treachery or evident premeditation that would elevate the crime to murder. The penalty for homicide is *reclusion temporal*, which ranges from twelve years and one day to twenty years imprisonment. However, the law also provides for mitigating circumstances, which, if proven, can reduce the imposable penalty. These are factors that do not justify the crime but lessen the moral culpability of the offender.

    Two key mitigating circumstances are relevant in the *Navarro* case:

    1. Sufficient Provocation or Threat on the Part of the Offended Party (Article 13, par. 4, Revised Penal Code): This applies when the victim’s actions or words are unjust, improper, and capable of inciting or irritating the offender, leading to the crime. The provocation must be sufficient, meaning adequate to provoke a reasonable person, and immediate, meaning it directly precedes the criminal act. As the Supreme Court explained in *People v. Paga*, “Provocation is defined to be any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. The provocation must be sufficient and should immediately precede the act.”
    2. Lack of Intention to Commit So Grave a Wrong as That Committed (Article 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code): This mitigating circumstance is considered when the consequences of the offender’s actions are far greater than what they intended. Even if the act is unlawful, if the offender did not intend to cause such serious harm, this can be considered in their favor. Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code states, “Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.” This highlights that even without intent for the specific grave wrong committed, liability exists, but the lack of such intent can be mitigating.

    Furthermore, the admissibility of evidence, particularly tape recordings, is governed by Republic Act No. 4200, also known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Law. This law prohibits the recording of private communications without the consent of all parties involved. Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 states, “It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word…” However, the law is clear that it applies to private communications. If a conversation is not considered private, its recording might be admissible in court.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: PEOPLE VS. NAVARRO – THE FATAL ENCOUNTER AT THE POLICE STATION

    The tragic events unfolded on February 4, 1990, in Lucena City. Radio reporters Stanley Jalbuena and Enrique “Ike” Lingan, along with Mario Ilagan, went to Entertainment City, a local club, to investigate reports of nude dancing. When Jalbuena took a photo of a dancer, a confrontation ensued with the floor manager, Dante Liquin, and security guard, Alex Sioco. Feeling threatened by Sioco, who allegedly threatened to kill Jalbuena and brandished a gun, the reporters fled to the Lucena police station to report the incident.

    Upon arrival at the police station, they encountered a group of policemen, including Felipe Navarro, drinking in front. Jalbuena proceeded to report the incident to the desk officer, Sgt. Añonuevo. Shortly after, Liquin and Sioco arrived at the police station. Navarro then engaged in a private conversation with Liquin and Sioco for about fifteen minutes. The situation escalated when Navarro confronted Jalbuena, berating him for causing trouble with Liquin, who Navarro identified as the son of a police officer. Navarro allegedly pushed Jalbuena against a wall, cocked his firearm, and threatened to kill him.

    Lingan intervened, attempting to mediate and stating, “*Huwag namang ganyan, pumarito kami para magpa-blotter, I am here to mediate.*” Navarro dismissed Lingan’s press affiliation and ordered Sgt. Añonuevo to record the reporters’ behavior in the police blotter. An argument ensued between Navarro and Lingan, culminating in Lingan challenging Navarro to a fistfight, saying, “*Masyado kang abusado, alisin mo yang baril mo at magsuntukan na lang tayo.*”

    Tragically, as Lingan turned away, Navarro struck him with the handle of his pistol above the left eyebrow, causing Lingan to fall. When Lingan tried to get up, Navarro punched him in the forehead, flooring him again. Unbeknownst to Navarro, Jalbuena had recorded the entire exchange on tape. Lingan was rushed to the hospital but died from his injuries. Navarro was charged with homicide.

    The Regional Trial Court found Navarro guilty of homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, considered the mitigating circumstances. The Court noted Jalbuena’s recorded conversation as crucial evidence, stating, “Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.” The Court also highlighted the medical evidence, stating, “The above testimony clearly supports the claim of Jalbuena that petitioner Navarro hit Lingan with the handle of his pistol above the left eyebrow and struck him on the forehead with his fist.“

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court appreciated two mitigating circumstances: sufficient provocation from Lingan’s challenge to a fistfight and Navarro’s lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, evidenced by his immediate exclamations after the incident indicating surprise and lack of intent to kill. However, the Court also considered the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in a police station, a place of public authority. Balancing these, the Supreme Court modified the penalty, reducing Navarro’s sentence while upholding the conviction for homicide.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FROM NAVARRO V. COURT OF APPEALS

    The *Navarro* case offers several crucial takeaways for individuals, especially in interactions with law enforcement and in understanding the nuances of criminal liability in homicide cases.

    • Mitigating Circumstances Matter: This case underscores the significant impact of mitigating circumstances on sentencing. Even in a homicide case, factors like provocation and lack of intent to cause grievous harm can lead to a reduced penalty. It is crucial in criminal defense to thoroughly investigate and present any mitigating factors.
    • Admissibility of Recorded Evidence: The ruling clarifies that recordings of non-private conversations are admissible as evidence in court. In public or semi-public spaces, individuals should be aware that their conversations might be recorded and potentially used in legal proceedings. This highlights the importance of being mindful of one’s words and actions, especially in potentially volatile situations.
    • Provocation and Emotional Responses: While provocation can be a mitigating circumstance, it does not excuse violent reactions. The case serves as a reminder that responding to provocation with violence can still lead to severe legal consequences. De-escalation and peaceful conflict resolution are always the better course of action.
    • Aggravating Circumstances: Conversely, aggravating circumstances, such as committing a crime in a place of public authority, can increase the severity of the penalty. The location and context of a crime are important factors in determining culpability and punishment.

    Key Lessons from Navarro v. Court of Appeals:

    • Understand Mitigating Circumstances: Be aware of factors that can lessen criminal liability, especially in emotionally charged situations.
    • Be Mindful of Public Interactions: Recognize that conversations in public or semi-public spaces may be recorded and used as evidence.
    • Seek Peaceful Resolution: Avoid escalating conflicts into violence, even when provoked.
    • Context Matters in Crime: The circumstances surrounding a crime, including location and intent, are crucial in legal proceedings.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is the difference between homicide and murder in the Philippines?

    A: Homicide is the unlawful killing of another person without the presence of any of the qualifying circumstances that characterize murder. Murder, on the other hand, is homicide qualified by circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Murder carries a heavier penalty than homicide.

    Q2: What are some examples of mitigating circumstances in Philippine law?

    A: Besides sufficient provocation and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, other mitigating circumstances include voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and acting upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

    Q3: Can self-defense be considered in homicide cases?

    A: Yes, self-defense is a valid defense in homicide cases. If proven, self-defense can lead to acquittal. However, the elements of self-defense (unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself) must be clearly established.

    Q4: Is a tape recording always admissible in court as evidence?

    A: No. Under R.A. No. 4200, recordings of private communications without the consent of all parties are generally inadmissible. However, recordings of non-private conversations, like in the *Navarro* case, can be admissible if properly authenticated.

    Q5: How does the Indeterminate Sentence Law apply in this case?

    A: The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose an indeterminate sentence, consisting of a minimum and maximum term. The minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, and the maximum term is within the prescribed penalty. In *Navarro*, the application of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the Indeterminate Sentence Law resulted in a sentence of 8 years of *prision mayor* as minimum to 14 years and 8 months of *reclusion temporal* as maximum.

    Q6: What is the significance of ‘sufficient provocation’ as a mitigating circumstance?

    A: Sufficient provocation recognizes that the victim’s actions may have contributed to the crime by inciting the offender. It acknowledges that human reactions are not always perfectly rational, especially in the face of unjust or offensive behavior. However, the provocation must be proportionate to the response and immediately precede the crime.

    Q7: What does ‘lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong’ mean practically?

    A: This means that while the offender intended to commit an unlawful act, they did not intend to cause harm as serious as what actually resulted. For example, in a fistfight, an offender might intend to inflict minor injury but unintentionally causes death. This lack of intent for the graver wrong can mitigate their culpability.

    Need legal guidance on criminal defense or understanding mitigating circumstances? ASG Law specializes in Criminal Law and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.