Mitigating:  Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong – APPLICABLE.

It was evident that they merely

wanted to denounce her as a witch before councilor Tubadeza when she was beaten and dragged to the
councilor's house, but that she received a beating more than she could take.  Obfuscation: APPLICABLE.
It clearly appears that appellants committed the crime in the belief that the deceased had cast a spell of
witchcraft upon the wife of Zapata which caused her serious illness. SENTENCE: 2 mitigating & 1
aggravating = penalty in its minimum period. PEOPLE V. PANSENSOY Facts: Accused-Pansensoy’s legally-
married wife-Analie had an affair with the victim-Reyes, a jeepney driver. The victim-Reyes and wife-
Analie were renting a house in Rizal and this was the place where the accusedPansensoy caught the
cheaters and is also where victimReyes was shot in the head at close range by the Accused-Pansensoy.
Accused-Pansensoy learned of the house the cheaters were hiding because of his friend “Bisaya” who
told him that he saw the cheaters together with accusedpansensoy’s son board a jeepney on their way
to the house. Bisaya accompanied accused to the house. Accused knocked on the door of the house but
he was not able to enter because wife-analie prevented him. Instead he sat on a bench outside the
house. Victim-Reyes went out and confronted the accused. Accused asked victim-reyes whether he
loved Analie. Reyes answered “Yes”. Accused asked victimreyes whether he was single. Reyes answered
Yes. At this point, although not stated in the case, AccusedPansensoy must have pointed a .38 caliber to
the head of victim-reyes. [BTW, accused is a security guard] AccusedPansensoy counted one to three.
ONE – TWO – BANG! Victim-Reyes sprawled on the ground and died. Issue: 1. Murder or Homicide? 2. Is
the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation present? Held: CRIME - SC said HOMICIDE
because there was no treachery or evident premeditation. Further, the crime is mitigated by passion
and obfuscation. 1. Before discussing why there is no treachery or premeditation. The mitigating of
passion and obfuscation must first be discussed. In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, the following elements should concur: (1) There should be an act both
unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) The act which produced the obfuscation
was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which
the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. Accused-claims that he saw the cheaters in their
underwear. Wife-Analie claims that they were merely lying down beside eachother. Nonetheless, in
either case it is easy to see how accused-Pansensoy acted with obfuscation because of jealousy upon
discovering his legitimate wife in the company of another man and the brazen admission by this man
that he loved his wife. Moreover, this is aggravated by the fact that the cheaters brought with them the
child of Pansensoy. Extreme emotional pain could result from such a situation and produce such passion
and anguish in the mind of a betrayed husband as to deprive him of self-control. To be blinded by
passion and obfuscation is to lose self-control. In this case, there is a clear showing that there were
causes naturally tending to produce such powerful passion as to deprive the accused of reason and self-
control. Further, the killing was not far removed from the act producing the passion. Only a few minutes
have