Doctrine:

Passion and Obfuscation under RPC Art.13 (6)

Title:

People vs Cauyan, 128 SCRA 504

Nature of Action: Automatic Review of the lower courts decision

FACTS:
Constancio Cauya , was convicted by the CFI of Quezon of 2 criminal cases. First is
murder of Claudia Amat, which sentenced him to 20 years reclusion temporal and
frustrated murder of Andres Patron, which sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of
2 years and 4 months of prision correccional as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor.
Appellant appealed to the CA of its resolution dated January 18, 1971, eliminating
passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty
should be reclusion perpetua.
9:30 in the evening of April 7, 1961, Claudia Amat, 58 years old, was heard by her
husband, Maximo Patron, and her son, Andres Patron shouting, Huag, pare! Tama na,
pare! Andres Patron, 21 years old, rushed to the stairs and saw the appellant stabbing
his mother. When the appellant saw him, he stabbed Andres on the armpit and other
parts of the body. Andres went to the yard and took a piece of wood to defend himself,
but the appellant, still holding the knife, ran after him and fell on the ground.
Prosecution contended that the appellant was actuated by hate and resentment against
the Patron family because the father of Andres had bailed out a certain Fr. Palilio in
connections with a criminal case which the appellant filed against the priest. The
witnesses testimonies negated the claim of the appellant that the stabbing is accidental.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in rejecting passion and obfuscation under Art.
13 (6) of the RPC in favor of the accused?
HELD:
The appellate court is correct in rejecting passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance in favor of appellant. In order that the said circumstance can be
considered, it is necessary to establish the existence of an unlawful act sufficient to
produce a situation of mind, and must be shown that the act which produced the passion
and obfuscation is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity
(People vs Gervacio, 24 SCRA 960).
It was not unlawful on the part of Maximo Patron, husband of the deceased, when he
acted as bondsman of the priest. And it was not shown that the act of having bailed the
priest was so proximate in point of time to the commission of the crime as to preclude a
sober realization of the wrongfulness of action taken by appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, appellant is guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced to reclusion

perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Claudia Amat the sum of P30,000 and to pay the
cost.