Mitigating circumstances: Is jealousy a form of passion and obfuscation?

Jealousy is like a hot pepper. Use it mildly, and you add spice to the relationship. Use too much of it
and it can burn (Ayala Pines)
What is the nature of mitigating circumstances? What is passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance? Is jealousy appreciated in passion and obfuscation?
Under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, mitigating circumstances are those circumstances
which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability,
but serve only to reduce the penalty. So, in appreciating a mitigating circumstance, the situation is:
First, the offender commits a crime; Second, there is a criminal liability; Third, the effect is to reduce
the penalty; and Fourth, it does not change the nature of the crime.
What is the basis? There is diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent, or on the
lesser perversity of the offender.
Two kinds of mitigating circumstances: Ordinary or privileged mitigating circumstances. An
ordinary mitigating circumstance can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance, whereas
privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset. The former, if not offset, has the effect of
imposing a lesser penalty, whereas the latter has the effect of imposing the penalty by one or two
degrees lower than that provided by law.
Passion and obfuscation is one of the ordinary mitigating circumstances. There is passional
obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by
prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. For
passion and obfuscation to be appreciated, the accused must establish that: (1) he acted upon an
impulse, and (2) the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion and obfuscation.
The passion and obfuscation could reduce the penalty only where the provocation causing the heated
passion came from the injured party.
The act must be within a considerable period of time. The act producing the obfuscation must not be
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
accused might have recovered his normal equanimity. However, it need not be felt only in the
seconds before the commission of the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time until it can no
longer be repressed and will ultimately motivate the commission of the crime. Passion, thus, may
linger and build up over time as repressed anger enough to obfuscate reason and self-control.
It is settled that in order that courts may take into consideration the existence of the mitigating
circumstance of "passion and obfuscation" in the commission of a felony, it is necessary to show the
causes or special motives which have produced in the mind of the offender those stimulants so
powerful that they naturally resulted in passion and obfuscation overcoming reason. The guilty party
must act under the impulse of such special motives originating from lawful sentiments. In other
words, passion and obfuscation, to be mitigating, must originate from lawful feelings, not from
vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.
Jealousy, in order to be mitigating, must have emanated from offender’s licit sentiments. In other
words, there is no passion and obfuscation if the reason for being jealous emanates from an immoral
passion. Thus, a mistress who was impelled to commit a crime due to jealousy is not entitled to any
mitigating effect of passion and obfuscation. It is obvious that the mistress’ jealousy cannot be
considered as having sourced from a licit sentiment. For example, she has no right to be jealous of
her partner’s wife. To borrow one line from a local movie, “mistresses don’t complain. It is the
wife’s role.”
However, jealousy was considered mitigating in one case. In the old case of U.S. v. Dela Cruz, G.R.
No. L-7094, March 29, 1912, the Highest Tribunal appreciated jealousy as mitigating (under the
concept of passion and obfuscation) when the man killed his querida when he caught her in the act
sexual intercourse with their common friend. The Court said that the impulse upon which the accused
acted and which naturally "produced passion and obfuscation" was not that the woman (querida)
declined to have illicit relations with him, but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and
his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. It concluded that this was a "sufficient
impulse" in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and obfuscation which
the law declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the
court.
Reference: Criminal Law Concepts and Jurisprudence, Book 1, Nojara, 2020 edition, Central
Bookstore.
P-10 S-20
Mitigating circumstances: Is jealousy a form of passion and obfuscation?
Jealousy is like a hot pepper. Use it mildly, and you add spice to the relationship. Use too much of it
and it can burn (Ayala Pines)
What is the nature of mitigating circumstances? What is passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance? Is jealousy appreciated in passion and obfuscation?
Under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, mitigating circumstances are those circumstances
which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability,
but serve only to reduce the penalty. So, in appreciating a mitigating circumstance, the situation is:
First, the offender commits a crime; Second, there is a criminal liability; Third, the effect is to reduce
the penalty; and Fourth, it does not change the nature of the crime.
What is the basis? There is diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent, or on the
lesser perversity of the offender.
Two kinds of mitigating circumstances: Ordinary or privileged mitigating circumstances. An
ordinary mitigating circumstance can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance, whereas
privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset. The former, if not offset, has the effect of
imposing a lesser penalty, whereas the latter has the effect of imposing the penalty by one or two
degrees lower than that provided by law.
Passion and obfuscation is one of the ordinary mitigating circumstances. There is passional
obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by
prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. For
passion and obfuscation to be appreciated, the accused must establish that: (1) he acted upon an
impulse, and (2) the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion and obfuscation.
The passion and obfuscation could reduce the penalty only where the provocation causing the heated
passion came from the injured party.
The act must be within a considerable period of time. The act producing the obfuscation must not be
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
accused might have recovered his normal equanimity. However, it need not be felt only in the
seconds before the commission of the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time until it can no
longer be repressed and will ultimately motivate the commission of the crime. Passion, thus, may
linger and build up over time as repressed anger enough to obfuscate reason and self-control.
It is settled that in order that courts may take into consideration the existence of the mitigating
circumstance of "passion and obfuscation" in the commission of a felony, it is necessary to show the
causes or special motives which have produced in the mind of the offender those stimulants so
powerful that they naturally resulted in passion and obfuscation overcoming reason. The guilty party
must act under the impulse of such special motives originating from lawful sentiments. In other
words, passion and obfuscation, to be mitigating, must originate from lawful feelings, not from
vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.
Jealousy, in order to be mitigating, must have emanated from offender’s licit sentiments. In other
words, there is no passion and obfuscation if the reason for being jealous emanates from an immoral
passion. Thus, a mistress who was impelled to commit a crime due to jealousy is not entitled to any
mitigating effect of passion and obfuscation. It is obvious that the mistress’ jealousy cannot be
considered as having sourced from a licit sentiment. For example, she has no right to be jealous of
her partner’s wife. To borrow one line from a local movie, “mistresses don’t complain. It is the
wife’s role.”
However, jealousy was considered mitigating in one case. In the old case of U.S. v. Dela Cruz, G.R.
No. L-7094, March 29, 1912, the Highest Tribunal appreciated jealousy as mitigating (under the
concept of passion and obfuscation) when the man killed his querida when he caught her in the act
sexual intercourse with their common friend. The Court said that the impulse upon which the accused
acted and which naturally "produced passion and obfuscation" was not that the woman (querida)
declined to have illicit relations with him, but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and
his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. It concluded that this was a "sufficient
impulse" in the ordinary and natural course of things to produce the passion and obfuscation which
the law declares to be one of the extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the
court.
Reference: Criminal Law Concepts and Jurisprudence, Book 1, Nojara, 2020 edition, Central
Bookstore.
P-10 S-20