Topic: Passion/Obfuscation

Arturo Romera, petitioner

Vs.
People of the Philippines, respondent

G.R. No. 151978

July 14, 2004

Facts:
Arturo Romera and his friends were heading to Biasong to play volleyball. On their way there, one
of them, Franklin Generol made fun of Bebing Zuluetas. The victim, Roy Mangaya-ay sided with
Zuluetas and scolded Generol. Romera who sided with Generol threatened the others then left.

The victim and his friends arrived in Balaguan, a kilometer away from Antonio Mangaya-ay's
house, Romera was seen carrying a bolo waiting for them. Romera chased them and the victim,
who slipped, was stabbed. The victim woke up at the provincial hospital after surgery.

Romera's testimony was as follows: The victim, who was drunk, went to Romera's house and
disturbed his family. When Romera opened the door, the victim thrust him bolo at him and telling
him he would kill Romera. Romera went outside and prevented the victim from entering. Outside,
the victim tried to hacked Romera again in which he deflected the blow and then stabbed the
victim.

Romera contends that the victim provoked him to a fit of anger when the latter woke him up and
thrust a bolo at him without warning as he opened the door. Moreover, by hacking and destroying
the bamboo wall of his house, and endangering the lives of his children, the victim also obfuscated
his thinking and reasoning processes.

The trial court discounted petitioners’ story of self-defense. It found that when petitioner got hold
of the bolo, there was no more danger to his life.

Romera was convicted of frustrated homicide.

The CA affirmed the trial court's decision and reiterated that the unlawful aggression ceased to
exist when petitioner took possession of the bolo from the victim. Absent unlawful aggression, the
justifying circumstance of self-defense becomes unavailing.

Issue:
Whether the mitigating circumstances of provocation and passion or obfuscation present in this
case

Ruling:
Yes. Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him, and hacking the bamboo walls of his
house are, in our view, sufficient provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his
thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and children are in danger. Romera stabbed the victim
as a result of those provocations and while he was still in a fit of rage.

The Court also stressed that provocation and passion or obfuscation are not two separate mitigating
circumstances. They should be treated together as one mitigating circumstance.