PASSION AND OBFUSCATION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCELINO OLOVERIO

GR. No. 211159, MARCH 18, 2015

DOCTRINE: Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance 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.

FACTS: Oloverio was arraigned on January 25, 2005, where he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the
merits ensued.
According to the prosecution, on October 2, 2003, at around 3:00 p.m., Rudipico Pogay (Pogay)
and Dominador Panday (Panday) saw Rodulfo Gulane walking about five (5) meters away from
them with Oloverio trailing behind him. Oloverio allegedly tapped Gulane’s right shoulder and
hacked him on the chest and extremities with a bolo until Gulane collapsed on the ground.
Oloverio then allegedly took Gulane’s money from his pocket.5
Pogay heard Oloverio shouting the words, "Patay na ang datu sa Brgy. San Pablo!" ("The rich
man in San Pablo is already dead!") Gulane managed to tell Oloverio, "Man luba ka man, Ling?"
("Ling, why did you stab me?") After, Gulane died. Panday proceeded to inform Gulane’s family
of the incident.
In his defense, Oloverio alleged that at the time and day of the incident, Gulane had been
accusing him of having an incestuous relationship with his mother. He allegedly kept his cool
and told Gulane to go home, but the latter continued to mock him by asking in a loud voice,
"How many times did you have sexual intercourse with your mother?" He allegedly asked
Gulane to go home again but the latter angrily replied, "Who are you to tell me to go home?”
Gulane allegedly attempted to draw his bolo but Oloverio stopped him by drawing his own bolo.
They grappled with it, and eventually, Oloverio ended up stabbing Gulane, which resulted in the
latter’s death. Accompanied by a barangay tanod, Oloverio went to the municipal hall to
surrender to the authorities. He admitted that he stabbed Gulane because he could no longer bear
the insulting remarks against him.
Romulo Lamoste (Lamoste), then Barangay Captain of Barangay Belen, Palompon, Leyte,
alleged that Gulane and Oloverio had an altercation before the incident. He alleged that
Oloverio’s daughter had once confided to Oloverio that Gulane wanted to touch her private parts.
About a month later, he allegedly heard Gulane ask Oloverio "in a joking manner about his
incestuous relationship with his mother." Oloverio allegedly got mad and they ended up fighting,
but Lamoste was able to subdue them. He, however, admitted that he was not present during the
incident.
On January 29, 2010, Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte rendered its
Decision finding Oloverio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

ISSUE: Whether the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is present?

RULING: The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is present in this case.
To be able to successfully plead the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the
accused must be able to prove the following elements:
1. that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and
2. that said 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.
To appreciate passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance, the facts must be examined
on a case-to-case basis.
In People v. Mojica, Aurelio Mojica was accused of murder for stabbing Diosdado Tormon to
death. He attempted to mitigate his liability by alleging that the victim humiliated him a month
before the incident. The trial court convicted him of murder without appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
However, a fight between the accused and the victim prior to the crime is not always enough to
be able to successfully prove that passion and obfuscation attended it.
The circumstances of both victim and accused-appellant were also not taken into account by the
trial court and the Court of Appeals.
Accused-appellant referred to Gulane as the "datu" or rich man of Barangay San Pablo. Gulane
enjoyed an economic ascendancy over accused-appellant, a mere barangay tanod.
Gulane not only threatened to molest accused-appellant’s daughter but also accused him in
public of having incestuous relations with his mother. Gulane was said to have insulted accused-
appelant in full view of his immediate superior, the barangay captain.
Both victim and accused-appellant lived in the small locality of Palompon, Leyte. As with any
small town, it was a place where a person’s degrading remarks against another could be made the
measure of the latter’s character. Gulane’s insults would have been taken into serious
consideration by the town’s residents because of his wealth and stature in the community.
There was neither a reason given why Gulane acted that way towards accused-appellant nor any
evidence to show that accused-appellant had previously wronged him.
The prosecution did not deny that Gulane insulted accused-appellant on various occasions. The
witnesses could not state with reasonable certainty that Gulane did not provoke accused-
appellant a few minutes before the incident; they could only testify to the incident itself and the
seconds which preceded it.
In view of these considerations, we find that the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation is present in this case.
MURDER; TREACHERY AS QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANIEL MATIAG y DE VILLA “Dani” or
“Danilo”
G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015

DOCTRINE: The killing of must be accompanied by a qualifying circumstance such as

treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

FACTS: Accused was charged with murder with Treachery as the qualifying circumstance. The
victim was walking in their subdivision when Duhan confronted him. He delivered a fist blow to
Duhan who teetered backwards. While Duhan remained in that position, Matibag shot him
several times.

ISSUE: Is the accused guilty?

RULING: Yes. The killing of must be accompanied by a qualifying circumstance such as

treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The
prosecution was able to prove that Matibag, was armed with a gun, confronted Duhan, and
without any provocation, punched and shot him on the chest. Although the attack was frontal, the
sudden and unexpected manner by which it was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to
defend himself, adding too that he was unarmed.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARLIE OROSCO
GR. No. 209227, MARCH 25, 2015

DOCTRINE: Robbery with Homicide; the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest
degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal without any clear showing that it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance
which could affect the result of the case.

FACTS: Information: Appellant, along with Abner Astor, "John Doe" and "Peter Doe," were
charged with Robbery with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 of the RPC.
Albert Arca went to the store of Lourdes Yap at Purok 4, Bgy. Rawis to buy ice but it was not
yet frozen so he went home. Thereafter, he was again sent on errand to buy ice at the same store.
After purchasing the ice, he noticed there was a verbal tussle between Yap and two male
customers. The men were arguing that they were given insufficient change and insisting they
gave a ₱500 and not₱100. When Yap opened the door, the two men entered the store. From
outside the store and thru its open window grills, Arca saw one of the men placed his left arm
around the neck of Yap and covered her mouth with his right hand while the other man was at
her back restraining her hands. He recognized the man who was holding the hands of Yap as
Charlie Orosco, while he described the man who covered her mouth as thin, with less hair and
dark complexion. The latter stabbed Yap at the center of her chest then released her and she fell
down on the floor. Orosco then took a thick wad of bills from the base of the santo at the altar in
front of the store's window, after which he and the man who stabbed Yap fled together with two
other men outside who acted as lookouts. Arca went near the bloodied victim but also left and
went home afraid because he was seen by one of the lookouts. Yap was brought to the Aquinas
University Hospital but she was declared dead on arrival. Later, at the NBI Legazpi City District
office, Arca positively identified Abner Astor (Astor) as one of the two lookouts. However,
Orosco appellant was arrested as Astor, John Doe and Peter Doe remained at large. Orosco
testified that on the date and time of the incident, he was at his house in Bigaa taking care of his
three-year-old child while his wife was washing clothes until past 3:00 PM. He denied knowing
Yap and Astor. He admitted that he was a resident of Purok 4, Bgy. Rawis, his family transferred
to their other house at Bigaa. He denied knowing Arca and he does not know of any motive for
Arca to testify against him. Orosco's wife also testified to confirm appellant’s defense. On cross-
examination, she replied that it will take less than one hour from Bigaa to Rawis. Orosco argues
that the trial court erred in giving credit to the uncorroborated eyewitness testimony of Arca who
could not point to him during the trial, and that even granting that criminal charges may be
imputed against him, it should only be robbery and not the complex crime of robbery with
homicide considering the fact that it was not him who stabbed Yap.
ISSUE: Whether the CA correctly upheld Orosco’s conviction for Robbery with Homicide?

RULING: Yes. The elements of the crime of robbery with homicide are: (1) the taking of
personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the
robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed. Homicide
is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if it is committed (a) to
facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of
the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses
to the commission of the crime. In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may
take place before, during or after the robbery. Here, the homicide was committed by reason of or
on the occasion of the robbery as appellant and John Doe had to kill Yap to accomplish their
main objective of stealing her money. The earlier verbal tussle where the two pretended to have
paid a greater amount and asked for the correct change was just a ploy to get inside the store
where the victim kept her earnings. To verify whether the cash payment was indeed a P500 or
P100 bill, the victim let them enter the store but once inside they got hold of her and stabbed her.
In case of the credibility of the testimony of the witness, we find no compelling or cogent reason
to deviate from the findings of the trial court on its evaluation of Arca’s testimony. The well-
settled rule in this jurisdiction is that the trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses are
entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal without any clear
showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
or substance which could affect the result of the case. Appellant repeatedly harped on the
hesitation of Arca to point to him at the trial. However, as the trial court’s firsthand observation
of said witness’ deportment revealed, Arca’s fear of appellant sufficiently explains his initial
refusal to point to him in open court during his direct examination. Arca was finally able to point
to appellant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery and killing of Yap during his additional
direct examination when he had apparently mustered enough courage to do so.
RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RONNIE BUAT ALIAS DATU SINSUAT
G.R. No. 206267, March 25, 2015

DOCTRINE: Rape; it is not necessary on the part of the victim to put up a tenacious physical
struggle when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the
embrace of her rapist because of fear.

FACTS: AAA lives with her parents and some of her siblings in Pagadian City. On 30 June
1996, AAA's eldest and married sister DDD was requested by their parents to sleep in the house
because AAA's mother BBB had to attend a wake in Dumaguete City while her father CCC was
on night duty working as a security guard. DDD's husband, appellant in this case, also went with
DDD. AAA slept in the sala next to her twin nephews, along with DDD, and appellant. AAA's
other siblings slept in another room. At around 2:00 a.m., AAA was awakened by appellant who
was half-naked and lying on top of her. AAA tried to talk a loud but appellant suddenly covered
her mouth with his right hand. Appellant managed to remove AAA's panties using his left hand
while holding a knife threatening to kill AAA should she tell her parents about the act. AAA
tried to resist but to no avail. Appellant ordered AAA to spread her legs. Appellant first inserted
his two fingers into her vagina before inserting his penis. AAA felt pain. After successfully
raping AAA, appellant proceeded to rape his wife DDD. AAA told DDD about what appellant
did but DDD ignored her. At around three (3) hours later, appellant and DDD left the house.
AAA went to the other room and immediately told one of her younger brothers that she was
raped by appellant. When CCC arrived in the morning, AAA likewise told him about the
incident. Appellant denied raping AAA. Instead, he claimed that on 30 June 1996 at around 2:00
a.m., he noticed AAA was lying beside him, inserting her hand inside his brief, and touching his
penis. He immediately parried AAA's hands causing his wife DDD to wake up. DDD scolded
AAA. Out of shame, appellant left early in the morning. Appellant stated that his wife's parents
were against him marrying DDD. Also, appellant finds it incredulous that AAA never exerted
any physical struggle or made any real resistance against his sexual advances.

ISSUE: Whether the crime of rape is committed despite that there is no any showing of physical
struggle on the part of the victim?

RULING: Yes. Note that rape was committed during the effectivity of the old rape provision,
i.e., Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
“Article 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
 1. By using force or intimidation;”
The Court, in People v. Banig, has held that it is not necessary on the part of the victim to put up
a tenacious physical struggle when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits
herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear. It was established in this case that appellant
was pointing a knife at AAA which impelled her to submit to appellant's lustful desire.