People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant and appellant, Hilario de la Cruz, was convicted of homicide. The evidence established that he killed his concubine upon discovering her in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. The trial court found no aggravating or extenuating circumstances. Procedural History: The trial court sentenced the convict to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, the medium degree of the penalty prescribed by the code. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the extenuating circumstance of passion and obfuscation should be considered in favor of the defendant. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court are affirmed, but modified by a finding that the commission of the crime was marked with the extenuating circumstance set out in subsection 7 of article 9, and by the reduction of the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the extenuating circumstance of passion and obfuscation should be considered: The Court held that the extenuating circumstance under subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code should have been taken into consideration. The evidence clearly disclosed that the convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who had theretofore been his querida, upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance. The Court found that this discovery constituted a sufficient impulse in the natural and ordinary course of things to produce the violent passion and obfuscation which the law regards as a special reason for extenuation. This was distinguished from a prior case (U.S. vs. Hicks) where the alleged cause for loss of self-control did not originate from legitimate feelings but from vexation and deliberate anger engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue illicit relations. In the present case, the impulse was the sudden revelation of infidelity and the discovery of the act itself. On whether the penalty imposed should be modified: The Court found that the prescribed penalty should have been imposed in its minimum degree due to the presence of the extenuating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.
Main Doctrine
The discovery of a paramour by a person who is living in concubinage with the offended party, in the act of carnal communication with the latter, constitutes a sufficient impulse to produce the passion and obfuscation contemplated as an extenuating circumstance under Article 9, subsection 7 of the Penal Code.