Mitigating Circumstance: Passion or obfuscation

Imperial, Via Rhidda G.

Abrero, Jan Paul
PEOPLE V. BELLO

Facts:
Guillermo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Guillermo was a 54 year
old widower, and Alicia’s senior by 30 years. Prior to Alicia’s employment at Maring’s Place, the couple led a
‘blissful’ life. Due to poverty, Alicia became an entertainer/public hostess at the said bar, and Guillermo used to
watch her there everyday; very much smitten by her beauty[1].
However, on May 16, Guillermo saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater with a man, and surprised the man
caressing her inside the movie house. Guillermo dragged her outside.
Two weeks later, Guillermo visited Maring’s Place to ask Alicia for money, but the owner, Maring (who was
fantastically creative enough to name the bar after him), told him to go home and to leave Alicia alone because he
was an old invalid. He proceeded to walk home empty handed, but upon passing Bonifacio Street, he came across
the Marasigan brothers who mocked him with the above stated remark. The self-loathing Guillermo proceeded to
Paty’s place and downed give glasses of Tuba.
By nighttime of the same day, Guillermo returned to Maring’s Place and did then and there stab Alicia several
times. Realizing what he had done, he ran to Gumarca and surrendered to the police there. He was found guilty by
the Court of First Instance of Quezon City of murder attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
alevosia, and abuse of confidence and ungratefulness; The penalty for which is death; thus the automatic review of
the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the victim should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation,
albeit his relationship with the victim being merely a common-law marriage?

Ratio:
Yes. By stare decisis, passion or obfuscation on the part of the offender must arise from legitimate and moral
sentiments. Since common-law marriages are considered unlawful in the Philippines, Obfuscation, when
relationship is illegitimate, cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
As was decided by the Court in US v. Hicks wherein: The common-law wife had a right to leave her common-
law husband, as they were not united in holy matrimony. He had no right to compel her to go with him. Remember
that the first requirement of passion or obfuscation is that there be an unlawful act, sufficient to produce diminution
of self-control or the exercise of will power.
Returning now to the case at hand, what Guillermo was asking from Alicia was that she (1) quit her job as a
hostess; an ill-reputed profession corroborated by her promiscuous relations with other men, and (2) resume her job
as a hostess.
The Supreme Court held that Alicia’s flat out refusal was an exhibition of immorality itself. A monogamous
illegitimate relationship is definitely of higher standing than illicit relationship for the sake of gain – or gainful
promiscuity as the court put it.
This, coupled with the cruel words against him were enough to constitute passion and obfuscation, as cited in
Article 13, number 6 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, in the old soul. Thus, he is entitled to a
mitigating circumstance.

Dispositive: The appealed decision should be, and hereby is modified. Court finds the accused-appellant, Guillermo
Bello, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, with 2 mitigating circumstances: passion and
obfuscation and voluntary surrender and to pay the costs.