Requisites of Passion and Obfuscation

.GR. No. 139542 June 21, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
INOCENCIO GONZALEZ, JR., accused-appellant.
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
In the afternoon of October 31, 1998 at about 2:30 p.m. both the families of the private
complainant Noel Andres and that of the accused Inocencio Gonzalez were on their
way to the exit of the Loyola Memorial Park. The accused was driving a white Isuzu
Esteem with his grandson and three housemaids, while the private complainant was
driving a maroon Toyota FX with his pregnant wife, his two year old son, his nephew
and his sister-in-law.

At the intersection, while the accused was turning left towards the exit of the memorial
garden and the complainant was headed straight along the road to the exit their two
vehicles almost collided. Complainant was able to timely step on the brakes. The
accused continued driving along his way while the complainant drove behind the
appellant’s vehicle for some time and cut him off when he found the opportunity to do
so. Noel Andres then got out of his vehicle and knocked on the appellant’s car
window. This is as far as their versions of the incident coincide.
The lower court rendered the judgment of guilty

The appellant seeks a reversal and prays that judgment be rendered exempting him
from criminal and civil liabilities. Appellant declared that he had no intention to shoot
Noel Andres much less his wife nor the children. He lost his balance when his daughter
Trisha approached and pushed him backwards to stop him from joining Dino and Noel
Andres but the appellant tried to free his right hand holding the gun and it accidentally
fired.

Finally, the appellant assigns as error the trial court’s rejection of the mitigating
circumstances pleaded by the defense which allegedly attended the commission of the
crime, i.e., lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, passion and obfuscation,
incomplete defense of a relative and voluntary surrender.

ISSUE
WoN the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is availing (NO)

RULING
The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. For this
mitigating circumstance to be considered, it must be shown that (1) an unlawful act
sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended victim; (2)
that 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; and that (3) "the
passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge".