ARTURO ROMERA, petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

G.R. No. 151978 July 14, 2004

Topic: Mitigating Circumstance- Passion/ Obfuscation

FACTS:

Arturo Romera and his friends were heading to Biasong to play volleyball. On
their way there Franklin Generol made fun of Bebing Zuluetas. The victim, Roy
Mangaya-ay sided with Zuluetas and scolded Generol. Romera who sided with Generol
threatened the others then left.

The victim and his friends arrived in Balaguan, a kilometer away from Antonio
Mangaya-ay's house, Romera was seen carrying a bolo waiting for them. Romera chased
them and the victim, who slipped, was stabbed. The victim woke up at the provincial
hospital after surgery.

Romera's testimony was as follows: The victim, who was drunk, went to Romera's
house and disturbed his family. When Romera opened the door, the victim thrust him
bolo at him and telling him he would kill Romera. Romera went outside and prevented
the victim from entering. Outside, the victim tried to hacked Romera again in which he
deflected the blow and then stabbed the victim.

Romera contends that the victim provoked him to a fit of anger when the latter
woke him up and thrust a bolo at him without warning as he opened the door. Moreover,
by hacking and destroying the bamboo wall of his house, and endangering the lives of his
children, the victim also obfuscated his thinking and reasoning processes.

The trial court discounted petitioners story of self-defense. It found that when
petitioner got hold of the bolo, there was no more danger to his life. Romera was
convicted of frustrated homicide.

The CA affirmed the trial court's decision and reiterated that the unlawful
aggression ceased to exist when petitioner took possession of the bolo from the victim.
Due to the absence of unlawful aggression, the justifying circumstance of self-defense
becomes unavailing.

ISSUE:

Whether the mitigating circumstances of provocation and passion or obfuscation

is present.

RULING:
 YES. Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him, and hacking the
bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage
and obfuscate his thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and children are in danger.
Romera stabbed the victim as a result of those provocations and while he was still in a fit
of rage.

The Court also stressed that provocation and passion or obfuscation are not two
separate mitigating circumstances. They should be treated together as one mitigating
circumstance.