Paragaraph 6: That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally

to have produced passion or obfuscation.

1. PP vs. BEATRIZ YUMAN 61 Phil. 786
RECTO, J.:
Facts:

 Marciano Martin and Beatriz Yuman without being joined in lawful wedlock,
lived as husband and wife for 3 or 4 years.
 February 26, 1935, when Marciano left their common dwelling.
 March 5, 1935, Beatriz went to look for him at the cockpit of Mandaluyong.
 From Mandaluyong, they came to Manila in a vehicle and while on the way they
talked of "his absence and the many debts they had". Marciano stated to Beatriz
his determination to end their relationship and urged her to return home alone.
 When they arrived in the district of Sampaloc, Beatriz suggested that they go
home together, to which Marciano, rude and hostile, objected warning her at
the same time not to meddle with his affairs and to do as she pleased,
whereupon Beatriz stabbed him with the penknife she was carrying thereby
inflicting a wound in the "right lumbar region which injured the kidney".
 When Marciano realized that he had been wounded, he started to run pursued
by Beatriz, with the penknife weapon in hand.
 In his flight, Marciano ran into traffic policeman Eduarcto Dizon whom he
asked to arrest "that woman" who had wounded him. Policeman Dizon saw
Beatriz and commanded her to surrender the penknife, which she did instantly.
 When asked why she had wounded Marciano she replied that Marciano "after
having taken advantage of her" had abandoned her. Immediately Marciano was
arrested and placed in custody.
 The following day Marciano Martin died as a result, according to expert
testimony, it was caused by the wound inflicted upon him by Beatriz Yuman.
 Beatriz Yuman was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the
crime of homicide.
 Beatriz Yuman appealed, alleging as error the failure of the trial court to take
into consideration the presence of certain circumstances mitigating her criminal
liability.
Issue: Whether Beatriz Yuman can invoke mitigating circumstances.
Held: Yes.
The court ruled that she acted under obfuscation. The court believe that this
mitigating circumstance should be taken into consideration in favor of the accused, in
view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the accused had
been abandoned by Marciano after living together for 3 or 4 years, and the harsh
treatment which Marciano gave the accused on the afternoon of the day in question, a
short time before the aggression.
 2. PP vs. Ruben Cabarrubias G.R. No. Nos. L-94709-10 June 15, 1993
QUIASON, J.:
Facts:

 July 31, 1986, at about 7:00 o'clock at night, at Barangay Patoc, in the
municipality of Bucay, Province of Abra. Ruben Cabarrubias attacked and
stabbed Jonalyn Espiritu, an 8-year-old child using a bolo to inflict five
incisions and penetrating wounds on the head and torso of Jonalyn which
caused her death shortly thereafter.
 Cabarrubias testified that he went to see Pedro to confront him about the
latter's attempt to electrocute his sister with an electric fishing device. Pedro
reacted by unsheathing his bolo and attacking Cabarrubias, who was able to
parry the attack and stab Pedro. He claimed that after the traumatic incident,
he was possessed by a state of mind that bordered on insanity overpowered by
a force beyond his control. This was his explanation of why he stabbed Jonalyn
who happened to cross his path.
 Cabarrubias also contends that he should have been convicted of homicide, not
murder, and that the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, should
have been appreciated in his favor.
 Cabarrubias alleges that he stabbed Jonalyn without any intention of killing
her but merely to stop her from screaming. He points out that Jonalyn did not
suffer any mortal wound as shown by the fact that after being stabbed, she was
still strong enough to assume a squatting position and even answer questions
asked her by Domingo Espiritu. He further claims that Jonalyn did not die as a
result of the stabbing but of shock and internal hemorrhage secondary to her
wounds.
 Cabarrubias asserts that Pedro's alleged act of attempting to electrocute his
sister, Pedro's alleged unlawful aggression, and Jonalyn's screams produced the
passion and obfuscation that deprived him of the time for reflection.
Issue: Whether Ruben Cabarrubias can invoke passion and obfuscation as
mitigating circumstances.
Held: No.
The circumstance of passion and obfuscation is not mitigating when the accused
acted in a spirit of lawlessness. Besides, the screams of an eight-year-old child are
not provocative enough to generate a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrolled
fury.

Paragraph 9: Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the
willpower of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of
his acts.
1. PEOPLE vs. ABELARDO FORMIGONES GR No. L-3246, Nov 29,
1950
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
Facts:

 November 1946, the defendant Abelardo Formigones, his wife Julia Agricola
and his five children were living on his farm in Bahao, Libmanan, in the
municipality of Sipocot, Camarines Sur. They decided to transfer to the house
of his half-brother, Zacarias, which is located in the Barrio of Binahian in the
same municipality, to find employment as harvesters of palay.
 On December 28, 1946, later in the afternoon, the Formigones’s wife, Julia,
was sitting in the head of the stairs of the house. Without any provocation or
previous quarrel, the accused took his bolo from the wall of the house and
stabbed his wife in the back. The blade penetrated the right lung and caused a
severe hemorrhage which resulted in death not long after. Julia toppled down to
the floor from the blow of the attack.
 Defendant Abelardo brought her up to the living room and laid down beside
her. He was found in this position by the rescuers who heard the shouts of help
from her eldest daughter, Irene Formigones, who witnessed everything. Irene
testified against his father in the case.
 During the investigation, Abelardo pleaded guilty to killing his wife. According
to his signed statement, he used to quarrel with his wife due to the latter’s
increasing closeness to his brother, Zacarias, while being indifferent to him.
This led him to suspect the two of being involved in an illicit relationship. It may
also be noted that observations made by the defendant in his written statement
state that his brother started sleeping over in their house even when he did not
do the same when they were not there before which increased his belief of
infidelity between the two.
 After being convicted of Parricide and sentenced with reclusion perpetua, the
defendant’s counsel appealed the decision and brought two witnesses to prove
that the defendant is an imbecile, thereby exempt from criminal liability. The
witnesses are the guards from the provincial jail in which the defendant was
held.
 They stated that Abelardo behave like an insane person, would sometimes
remain silent be indifferent to his surroundings; that he would refuse to take a
bath and wash his clothes unless forced by the guards; that sometimes he
would remove his clothes in front of his fellow inmates; that sometimes he
would sing in chorus with his fellow prisoners, or even alone by himself without
being asked, and that once when the door of his cell was open, he suddenly
darted from inside into the prison compound apparently in an attempt to regain
his liberty.
 Dr. Francisco Gomez, the one who examined the defendant and is also a
witness of the latter, is of the opinion that Abelardo only has feeblemindedness
and not imbecility and that he could determine right from wrong.
Issue: Whether Abelardo Formigones who is suffering from feeble mindedness is
exempt from criminal liability.
Held: No.
The defendant is not exempt from criminal liability as he does not qualify as imbecile
under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 12, he must be deprived
completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing
the crime so as to be labeled imbecile and be exempt from criminal liability. The
allegation of being insane or imbecile must be clearly proven. Unless there is positive
evidence that the defendant has previously lost his reason prior to or during the
perpetuation of the crime, it is assumed that he is in normal condition.
The fact that the accused is feeble minded warrants the finding in his favor of the
mitigating circumstance provided for in either par. 8 or par. 9 of Article 13 of the
Revised Penal Code, namely, that the accused is "suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow beings",
or such illness "as would diminish the exercise of his will power".
The Court sympathizes with the defendant due to his being feebleminded. In his
actions following the death of his wife, him picking her up and laying down with her,
showed that he knew what he had done wrong. He also did not exert any effort to
evade the authorities.

Paragraph 10: Any other circumstances of similar nature and analogous to

those abovementioned.
1. PP vs. Gona G.R. No. 32066. March 15, 1930
OSTRAND, J.:
Facts:

 On the evening of October 26, 1928, a number of Mansacas celebrated a

reunion in the house of the Mansaca Gabriel. There was plenty of supply of
alcoholic drinks and some of the men present became intoxicated. A quarrel
took place between the Mansaca Dunca and Mansaca Gona.
 Dunca and his son Aguipo eventually left the house and were followed by
Mapudul and one Awad. Gona left the house about the same time with the
intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the evening and in the
intoxicated condition of Gona, he mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted on
him a mortal wound with a bolo.
 Gona killed Mapudul and that he is guilty of the crime charged, but his
attorney argues that in view of the fact that Gona had no intention to kill the
Mapudul and committed the crime by mistake.
Issue: Whether Gona who committed the crime by mistake can invoke mitigating
circumstances.
Held: No.
Mistake in killing one man instead of another, when it is proved that he acted
maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility. Neither does
the court believe that the fact that he made a mistake in killing the wrong man should
be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
2. PP. vs. Moro Macbul G.R. No. L-48976 October 11, 1943
OZAETA, J.:
Facts:

 March 9, 1943, Moro Macbul stole two sacks of papers valued at P10 belonging
to the Provincial Government of Sulu. He sold the stolen goods for P2.50, in
order to be able to buy something to eat for his children.
 Macbul is also a habitual delinquent, having been twice convicted of the same
crime on November 14, 1928, and August 20, 1942.
Issue: Whether Macbul can invoke extreme poverty and necessity as mitigating
circumstances.
Held: Yes.
The trial court considered extreme poverty and necessity as a mitigating circumstance
falling within Paragraph 10 of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, which authorizes
the court to consider in favor of an accused "any other circumstance of a similar
nature and analogous to those above mentioned."
The trial court predicates such consideration upon its finding that the accused, on
account of extreme poverty and of the economic difficulties brought about by the
present cataclysm, was forced to steal the two sacks of paper.
The right to life is more sacred than a mere property right. That is not to encourage or
even support theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of
the rough realities of life.