People v Oloverio Gulane wanted to touch her private parts.

About a month later, he

allegedly heard Gulane ask Oloverio "in a joking manner about his
FACTS: incestuous relationship with his mother."Oloverio allegedly got mad
According to the prosecution, on October 2, 2003, at around 3:00 and they ended up fighting, but Lamoste was able to subdue them.
p.m., Rudipico Pogay (Pogay) and Dominador Panday (Panday) saw He, however, admitted that he was not present during the incident.
Rodulfo Gulane walking about five (5) meters away from them with
Oloverio trailing behind him. Oloverio allegedly tapped Gulane’s RTC: Guilty of MURDER
right shoulder and hacked him on the chest and extremities with a The trial court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of
bolo until Gulane collapsed on the ground. Oloverio then allegedly passion and obfuscation was not present in this case since it could
took Gulane’s money from his pocket. not co-exist with the presence of treachery. The only mitigating
Pogay circumstance it found present was of voluntary surrender.
heard Oloverio shouting the words, "Patay na ang datu sa
CA: AFFIRMED
Brgy. San Pablo!" ("The rich man in San Pablo is already dead!")
Gulane managed to tell Oloverio, "Man luba ka man, Ling?" ("Ling,
ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of passion and
why did you stab me?") After, Gulane died. Panday proceeded to
obfuscation is present in the case?
inform Gulane’s family of the incident.
HELD: YES
In his defense, Oloverio alleged that at the time and day of
the incident, Gulane had been accusing him of having an incestuous
Accused-appellant Marcelino Oloverio is guilty only of
relationship with his mother. He allegedly kept his cool and told
homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. He is entitled
Gulane to go home, but the latter
to the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and of
continued to mock him by asking in a loud voice, "How many times
voluntary surrender.
did you have sexual intercourse with your mother?" He allegedly
asked Gulane to go home again but the latter angrily replied, "Who
The presence of treachery, however, has not been
are you to tell me to go home?"
sufficiently established. The mere suddenness of an attack should not
be the sole basis in finding treachery. There must be evidence to
Gulane allegedly attempted to draw his bolo but Oloverio
show that the accused deliberately or consciously adopted the means
stopped him by drawing his own bolo. They grappled with it, and
of execution to ensure its success.
eventually, Oloverio ended up stabbing Gulane, which resulted in the
latter’s death. Accompanied by a barangay tanod, Oloverio went to
At the time of the incident, Gulane was already 83 years old.
the municipal hall to surrender to the authorities. He admitted that he
Accused-appellant was standing behind him. He already had the
stabbed Gulane because he could no longer bear the insulting
advantage of surprise with Gulane’s back turned. Gulane’s advanced
remarks against him.
age and position would have ensured his death as it would have
prevented him from being able to retaliate. Instead, accused-
Romulo Lamoste (Lamoste), then Barangay Captain, alleged
appellant tapped Gulane on the shoulder as if to call his attention. He
that Gulane and Oloverio had an altercation before the incident. He
waited until Gulane was facing him before he started stabbing. The
alleged that Oloverio’s daughter had once confided to Oloverio that
medico-legal report indicates stab wounds on the chest and is that the accused has not yet "recovered his normal equanimity"
extremities,proving that Gulane was stabbed from the front. Since when he committed the crime.
treachery has not been proven, the crime is merely homicide. To appreciate passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance, the facts must be examined on a case-to-case basis.
The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is present in
this case. In the case at bench, the assault came in the course of an
altercation and after appellant had sharpened his bolo in full view of
To be able to successfully plead the mitigating circumstance of the victim. Appellant's act of sharpening his bolo can be interpreted
passion and obfuscation, the accused must be able as an attempt to frighten the victim so the latter would leave him
to prove the following elements: alone. It was simply foolhardy for the victim to continue walking to
1. that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such and from
condition of mind; and near appellant in a taunting manner while the latter was sharpening
2. that said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed his bolo.
Accused-appellant admitted that he stabbed Gulane but
from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time,
alleged that they had been fighting. He alleged that Gulane had been
during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. hurling insults at him which provoked him to react; in effect, he
alleged that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation
The obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings. The was present in this case.
turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or fight The Court of Appeals rejected his contention and stated that
should not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind no evidence was presented to prove that immediately before or at the
of a person injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of time of the incident, there was an altercation between accused-
his sanity and self-control, because the cause of this condition of appellant and Gulane that would provoke his reaction.
mind must necessarily have preceded the commission of the
offense." Lamoste testified that about a month before the incident, he
witnessed Gulane telling accused-appellant, "Kumusta na man mo
M imo mama nagtap-il mo imo mama naba mo produkto?" ("How is
oreover, "the act producing the obfuscation must not be your relationship with your mother have you produced fruits with
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable your mother?") He alleged that accused-appellant got angry and tried
length of time, during which the accused might have recovered his to attack Gulane, but he was able to intervene and part the two.
normal equanimity."
The prosecution did not deny any portion of Lamoste’s
There is no uniform rule on what constitutes "a considerable testimony and only insisted that no altercation occurred immediately
length of time." The provocation and the commission of the crime before the stabbing.
should not be so far apart that a reasonable length of time has passed
during which the accused would have calmed down and be able to Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals narrowed
reflect on the consequences of his or her actions. What is important its understanding of passion and obfuscation to refer only to the
emotions accused-appellant felt in the seconds before a crime is
committed. It failed to understand that passion may linger and
build up over time as repressed anger enough to obfuscate
reason and self-control.

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.