MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 1
URBANO v PEOPLE
FACTS:
One afternoon, in a restaurant in the town of Bugallon, Pangasinan,
petitioner together with the deceased and several officemates were
drinking beer. When it was time to depart, the chairperson asked petitioner
to inform victim, who was seated in another table, to prepare to leave.
When so informed, victim insulted petitioner, telling the latter he had no
business stopping him from further drinking as he was paying for his share
of the bill.
At around 8:00 p.m., when they arrived at a compound in Lingayen,
Pangasinan, the vicitim allegedly slapped and hurled insults at petitioner,
calling him “sipsip” just to maintain his employment as the chairperson’s
tricycle driver.
Reacting, petitioner asked why Tomelden, when drunk, has the penchant
of insulting petitioner. The exchange of words led to an exchange of
blows. The petitioner, being smaller than the victim tried to avoid a fight
however the victim challenged the petitioner. They refused to be pacified
and continued throwing fist blows at each other. Then petitioner delivered
a “lucky punch” on victim’s face. The blow, caused Tomelden’s nose to
bleed and rendered him unconscious.
Following the incident, the victim complained of pain in his nape, head,
and ear which impelled his wife to immediately bring him to the hospital.
He went back to the hospital several times complaining of dizziness,
headache, and other pains. The attending doctors observed the patient to
be in a state of drowsiness and frequent vomiting.
On his last hospital visit, the doctor noted that Tomelden appeared to be
semi-conscious, sleepy, uncooperative, and not responding to any
stimulant. Tomelden died at 9:00 p.m. of that day due, per Dr. Arellano,
to “cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral concussion with
resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident”.
RUBY MORENO
The RTC convicted Urbano of Homicide and the CA affirmed the
decision.
On appeal, Urbano contends that:
1. RTC & CA erred in ruling that he is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of homicide
2. Erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of sufficient
provocation on the part of the victim and prater intentionem
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the crime committed is homicide
2. Whether or not he should be awarded of the mitigating circumstances
RULING:
1. Yes, the crime committed is homicide. The fist blows sustained by the
victim was the proximate cause of his cerebral hemorrhage that caused
the cardio-respiratory arrest that caused his death.
2. Yes, he should be awarded of the mitigating circumstance of:
a. sufficient provocation on the part of the victim –
i. that the provocation be sufficient
ii. that it must originate from the offended party
iii. that the provocation must be immediate to the act
In the instant case, the victim’s insulting remarks directed at the
petitioner and uttered immediately before the fist fight constituted
sufficient provocation.
b. Prater intentionem - Petitioner tried to avoid the fight, being
very much smaller than Tomelden. He tried to parry the blows
of Tomelden, albeit he was able, during the fight, to connect a
lucky punch that ended the fight. Moreover, petitioner helped
carry his unconscious co-worker to the office.
With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, such
is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance hence the penalty is
lowered by degree.
Homicide – reclusion temporal to prision mayor

PEOPLE v BENITO
FACTS:
At about 5:30 p.m, the victim Pedro Moncayo, Jr., Assistant Chief of
Personnel Transaction of the Civil Service Commission, while driving his
car in front of the Office of the Civil Service Commission was followed
by the accused, Benito, and when the car was about to turn at the
intersection the accused shot him eight times with a .22 caliber revolver,
causing the victim’s death.
Accused was charged with murder qualified by treachery with the penalty
of death.
On review, the accused contends that he be granted the mitigating
circumstance of vindication of a wrong. The supposed grave offense done
by the victim was an alleged remark made in the presence of the accused
at
about 11:00 a.m. the same day of the incident, that the Civil Service
Commission is a hangout of thieves. The accused felt alluded to because
he was facing then criminal and administrative charges on several counts
involving his honesty and integrity.
Furthermore, the accused contends that he also be granted the mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party.
He contends that at around 7pm preceding the day the crime was
committed, the victim told him: “Get out of there, because something
might happen to you and because I might have you finished here”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused be granted the mitigating circumstance of
vindication of a wrong
RULING:
No, the accused may not be granted the mitigating circumstance of:
1. Vindication of a wrong are:
a. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the
felony or to his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
RUBY MORENO
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 2
natural or adopted brother or sister or relatives by affinity with
the same degree
b. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave
offense
The remark made by the victim cannot be considered a grave offense
against the accused. The remark itself was general in nature and not
specifically directed to the accused. If he felt alluded to by a remark which
he personally considered insulting to him, that was his own individual
reaction thereto.
At most, said remark might be considered a mere provocation and not a
grave offense which might have impelled the accused to commit a crime
in immediate retaliation. In the instant case, the provocation was not
sufficient and did not immediately precede the act, it may not be
considered as a mitigating circumstance.
2. Sufficient Provocation:
a. that the provocation be sufficient
b. that it must originate from the offended party that the
provocation must be immediate to the act
That statement of the deceased was supposed to have
been uttered in the presence of other people almost twenty four (24) hours
before the crime was committed. It was not accompanied by any overt act
against accused and nothing more happened during that night, so that the
accused by that utterance could not have felt sufficiently provoked or
threatened so as to immediately react in his defense or retaliate by
committing a crime. The provocation or threat, did not immediately
precede the shooting.
Aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and disrespect of
rank, offset by mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and plea of
guilt.
Reclusion perpetua in medium period.

BACABAC v PEOPLE
FACTS:
The victim, Hernani Quidato was at a dance hall with Eduardo and
Melchor and so were Jonathan Bacabac (Jonathan) and Edzel Talanquines
(Edzel).
Jonathan and Edzel left the dance hall. Quidato’s group also left. After a
while, the victim’s group encountered Jonathan and Edzel and the two
groups had a misunderstanding.
On his way home, Jesus Delfin Rosadio (Jesus), noticed a commotion. He
soon saw that Melchor was
“hugging” Edzel, and later “tying” Jonathan “with his
hands.” He then saw the victim hit Edzel with a “stick.”
He thus told the victim and his companions that Edzel is the son of
Councilor, whereupon Eduardo told Jesus to go away for they might shoot
him. Jesus left and went to Edzel’s house to report to his father what he
had witnessed. Meanwhile, Edzel and Jonathan escaped.
The victim and his companions then headed for home. They met herein
petitioner Ricardo Bacabac (Bacabac), with Edzel and Jonathan who are
Bacabac’s nephews;
Also there were Edzel's father, and Edzel’s mother, and his two sisters.
Bacabac and Jose were carrying armalites, while Jonathan and Edzel had
a piece of wood and a revolver, respectively.
Jesus then pointed to the victim and his companions as the ones who had
manhandled Jonathan and Edzel. The victim apologized, explaining that
he and his companions mistook Jonathan and Edzel for other persons.
Jesus blurted out, however, “You are just bragging that you are brave. You
are only bullying small children. Bacabac, at that instant, fired his armalite
into the air, while Jose fired his armalite at the victim and Eduardo, even
hitting Jonathan in the thigh as he (Jonathan) “was on the move to strike
Quidato with a piece of wood.” Eduardo fell. And so did Quidato who was
RUBY MORENO
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 3
in a kneeling position, and as he was raising his hands in surrender, Jose
shot him again.
Melchor escaped. Quidato, Eduardo, and Jonathan were brought to the
hospital. Quidato was pronounced dead on arrival. Eduardo died two hours
later.
Two information were filed. One for the murder of Quidato and the other
for Eduardo’s.
The RTC found them (Bacabac, Jose, Jesus, Edzel and Jonathan) all guilty
of murder qualified by treachery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bacabac should be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense.
RULING:
No, Bacabac shall not be granted the mitigating circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense.
1. That there be a grave offense done
The offense committed on Edzel was “hitting” his ear with a stick,
which could not be considered as a grave offense
2. to the one committing the felony or to his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister or
relatives by affinity with the same degree
Edzel is Bacabac’s nephew, which is not a relative contemplated in
Article 13 Paragraph (4)
3. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 4

US v HICKS
3. The passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not
FACTS: from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge
Agustina Sola was the mistress of Augustus Hicks, an Afro-American. Loss of reason and self-control produced by jealousy as alleged by the
They lived together for about 5 years until Sola decided to leave Hicks. defense, inasmuch as the only causes which mitigate the criminal
Sola found another Afro-American lover, Wallace Current. When Hicks responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as originate from
learned about this he went to Current’s house to confront the two. legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and
immoral passions.
While conversing with Current, Hicks said “God damn, I’ve made up my
mind” as he was about to grab his revolver. Current got hold of Hicks’
hand but the latter slapped it away. Current ran inside a room just as Hicks
drew his revolver and shot Sola, who was close by in the sala of the house,
on the left side of the breast. Sola died. Hicks was charged and found guilty
of murder, sentenced to death.

He contends that he be granted the mitigating circumstance of passion and

obfuscation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not he be granted the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation

RULING:
No, the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation shall not be
granted.

Requisites of passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance:

1. That there is an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and
obfuscation
There was no unlawful act as the victim was in a legitimate
relationship with Current and they she and Hicks has been separated
already.

2. The crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from

the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation
in the accused’s mind
The crime committed was well-planned and did not arise from an
unlawful act that produced passion or obfuscation

RUBY MORENO
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 5

US v DE LA CRUZ
FACTS:
The convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who had
theretofore been his querida (concubine or lover) upon discovering her in
flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused be granted the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation
the impulse upon which defendant acted and which naturally “produced
passion and obfuscation” was not that the woman 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. As said by the
supreme court of Spain in the above cited decision, 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.

RULING:
Yes, the accused shall be granted the mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation.

1. That there is an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and

obfuscation
The woman, who was his legitimate lover, was in carnal knowledge
with another man.

2. The crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from

the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation
in the accused’s mind

3. The passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not
from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge
As he thought she was faithful to her, and having seen her with another
man, a sufficient impulse that caused him to kill her was present

In comparison with Hicks Case

In the Hicks case the cause of the alleged “passion and obfuscation” of the
aggressor was the convict's vexation, disappointment and deliberate anger
engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit
relations with him, which she had a perfect right to do; his reason for
killing her being merely that he had elected to leave him and with his full
knowledge to go and live with another man. In the present case however,

RUBY MORENO
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 6

PEOPLE v GELAVER Whether or not the accused be granted the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation
FACTS:
At 7:00 a.m., a witness heard shouts coming from the house where the RULING:
victim, Victoria and her paramour is living. Witness saw the Victoria and No, he shall not be granted the mitigating circumstance of passion of
the accused, who was the victim’s husband, having a heated argument. obfuscation.
Thereafter, the accused held the neck of the victim, dragged her and with
a knife on his right hand, stabbed the latter three times on the breast. 1. That there is an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and
Accused then went out of the gate and fled in the direction of the public obfuscation
market.
2. The crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from
The accused admitted killing his wife but claims that he did so because he the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation
caught him in the act of carnal knowledge with her paramour. in the accused’s mind
The woman left the conjugal dwelling almost a year before the
Gelaver testified that he was married to Victoria, with whom he begot four commission of the crime.
children. They lived together at their conjugal home until almost a year
ago when she abandoned her family to live with her paramour. 3. The passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not
from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge
Appellant further testified that he was informed by his daughter that his
wife and paramour were living at a house in front of the church. (Daughter
testified that she did not know about the dwelling of her mother) He
immediately went to the place. Upon entering the house, he saw his wife
lying on her back and her paramour on top of her, having sexual
intercourse.

Appellant's version of the killing was that when his wife saw him, she
pushed her paramour aside. Her paramour immediately stood up, took a
knife placed on top of the bedside table and attacked appellant. The latter
was able to wrest possession of the knife and then used it against the
paramour, who evaded the thrusts of the appellant by hiding behind the
victim. Thus, it was the victim who received the stab intended for the
paramour.

As to why he continued to stab his wife, appellant said that his mind had
been “dimmed” or overpowered by passion and obfuscation by the sight
of his wife having carnal act with her paramour.

ISSUE:

RUBY MORENO
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 7

PEOPLE v BELLO Yes, he may be granted the mitigating circumstance of passion or

FACTS:
Accused Bello is a 54 year old disabled widower who was having a
common law relationship with Alicia Cervantes who was then only 24
years old. Because of financial strain, Bello induced Alicia to work as a
public hostess in Maring’s Bar to which she agreed. Bello was very
infatuated with Alicia that he watched her dance all the time in the bar.
One night, Bello saw Alicia enter a movie house with another guy. Bello
took her out of the movie house and reminded her to be discreet about her
personal conduct.
obfuscation.
The Court held: “Alicia’s insulting refusal to renew her liaison with the
accused, therefore, was not motivated by any desire to lead a chaste life
henceforth, but showed her determination to pursue a lucrative profession
that permitted her to distribute her favors indiscriminately. We cannot see
how the accused's insistence that she live with him again, and his rage at
her rejection of the proposal, can be properly qualified as arising from
immoral and unworthy passions. Even without benefit of wedlock, a
monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than gainful
promiscuity.”

One night, he approached Alicia while the latter was working in the bar to This, coupled with the cruel words against him were enough to constitute
ask for some money. He was sent away by Maring, the bar owner, telling passion and obfuscation in the old soul. Thus, he is entitled to a mitigating
him to stop bothering Alicia as he was already an old man and was circumstance.
baldado. On his way home, Bello encountered Justo and Luis Marasigan
who said “so this is the man whose wife is being used by Maring for white
slave trade”.

These remarks brought grief to the accused, to drown which he sought

Paty’s place where he drank 5 glasses of tuba; then he went to Realistic
Studio which is in front of Maring's Place and from there watched the
movements of Alicia.

At about 9:00 o'clock that night he entered Maring's Place and without
much ado held Alicia from behind with his left hand in the manner of a
boa strangulating its prey and with his right hand stabbed Alicia several
times with a balisong. Seeing Alicia fallen on the ground and believing
her to be mortally wounded, he fled and went to the municipal building
and there surrendered himself to the police.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused be granted the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation

RULING:

RUBY MORENO
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 8

PEOPLE v AMAGUIN They surrendered themselves to the authority after a week. Even if
they surrendered a week later, they have not yet been actually arrested
FACTS: by the police
One afternoon, Hernando, Danilo and Diosdado Oro, together with their 3. The surrender must be voluntary
other relatives, were invited by their eldest brother Pacifico to his house a. Spontaneous
for a small gathering to celebrate the town fiesta. At about five o’clock in b. Unconditional
the afternoon, after the celebration, Hernando and his companions decided
to leave. They were accompanied by Pacifico to the plaza where they
could get a ride.

On their way, Pacifico was called by accused Celso Amaguin: “Pare, come
here.” But Pacifico answered: “Pare, not yet because I have to conduct my
guests first.” Immediately, Celso, with a butcher's knife in hand, rushed
towards Pacifico. Gildo, Celso’s younger brother, with a knife tucked to
his waist, followed with a slingshot known as “Indian pana” or “Indian
target”.

While Gildo aimed the dart from his slingshot at Danilo, which hit the
latter on the chest, Celso hacked Pacifico. Gildo then stabbed Diosdado
with a knife.

Thereafter, Willie, the eldest of the Amaguin brothers,

appeared with a handgun and successively shot the brothers Pacifico,
Diosdado and the fleeing Danilo. Diosdado, own kneeling, gasping for
breath and pleading for his life, was again shot by Willie who next fired
anew at Pacifico. Meanwhile, Gildo and Celso repeatedly stabbed Pacifico
who already lying prostrate and defenseless.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused be granted the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender and confession of guilt

RULING:

Voluntary surrender requisites:

1. That the offender has not been actually arrested
2. The offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents

RUBY MORENO
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CASE DIGESTS | 9

PEOPLE v DE LA CRUZ
FACTS:
Accused attacked Yu Wan, gave him blows with his fist on the face and
other parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which
have required and will require medical attendance for a period of more
than one but less than nine days and have prevented and will prevent the
said Yu Wan from engaging in his customary labor for the same period of
time; and afterwards took, stole and carried away with him without the
consent of the owner thereof the following personal property, to wit: PHP
26.
That the said accused Francisco de la Cruz is a habitual delinquent under
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, he having been previously
convicted once of the crime of theft and twice of the crime of estafa, by
virtue of final judgments rendered by competent courts, having been last
convicted on July 24, 1933.
the appellant's plea of guilty does not constitute a mitigating circumstance
under article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code, which requires
that this plea be spontaneous and that it be made prior to the presentation
of evidence by the prosecution. The confession of guilt, although
subsequent to the consummation of the crime and entirely alien to its
development, constitutes a cause for the mitigation of the penalty, not
because it is a circumstance modifying criminal responsibility already
incurred and in the evolution of which it has not intervened absolutely, but
because, as an act of repentance and respect for the law, it indicates a moral
disposition in the accused favorable to his reform.
It is clear that these benefits are not deserved by the accused who submits
to the law only after the presentation of some evidence for the prosecution,
believing that in the end the trial will result in his conviction by virtue
thereof.

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.

During the trial and after two witnesses for the prosecution had testified,
the accused withdrew their plea of not guilty, substituting it by that of
guilty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused be granted the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary confession of guilt.

RULING:
No, he shall not be granted the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
confession of guilt.

Confession of guilt requisites:

1. The offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
2. The confession of guilt was made in open court
3. The confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence

RUBY MORENO