People v Bello | GR L - 18792 | Feb. 28, 1964 | Reyes, J.B.L.

, J
FACTS:
- Guillermo Bello and Alicia Cervantes lived together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage.
- They led a blissful life prior to Alicia’s as entertainer at a bar called Maring’s Place.
Guillermo watched her movements every day.
- However, on May 16, Guillermo saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater and was
surprised because another man was caressing her common-law wife. With that, he
dragged her outside and warned her to be more discreet in her personal conduct in the
theater.
- Two weeks later, Guillermo visited Maring’s Place to ask Alicia for money, but the
owner told him to go home and to leave Alicia because he was an old invalid. On his
way home, he passed a street and met Justo & Luis Marasigan who mocked him. This
made him drink glasses of Tuba at Paty’s Place.
- By nighttime on the same day, Guillermo returned to Maring’s Place and stabbed
Alicia several times. Realizing what he had done, he ran towards the municipal
building and surrendered himself to the police of Gumaca.
- He was found guilty by the CFI 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. Hence. This automatic review of the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not herein defendant Guillermo Bello should be given the benefit of
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, albeit his relationship with Alicia
being merely a common-law marriage?
HELD:
- Yes.
RATIO:
- Stare decisis provides that 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. In the case of (U.S. vs. Hicks, 14
Phil. 217), the common-law wife of Mr. Hicks terminated her relations with the
American and contracted new relations with a certain corporal. Mr. Hicks shot his ex-
common-law-wife when she refused to go home with him and resume their
relationship. Since they were not married, she was entitled to do so. What she did –
cruel as it may be – was legal in the eyes of law. Passion and obfuscation were not
appreciated in such a case, since:
o 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.
- Bu in the case at bar, 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 in the old soul. Thus, he is entitled
to a mitigating circumstance.