THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO BELLO, Defendant-Appellant. G.R. No. L-18792 February 28, 1964
Facts:
Guillermo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage. Guillermo was a 54 year old widower, and Alicia’s
senior by 30 years. Prior to Alicia’s employment at Maring’s Place, the
couple led a ‘blissful’ life. Due to poverty, Alicia became an
entertainer/public hostess at the said bar, and Guillermo used to watch
her there everyday; very much smitten by her beauty[1].
However, on May 16, Guillermo saw Alicia enter the Gumaca theater with a man, and surprised the man caressing her inside the movie house. Guillermo dragged her outside.
Two weeks later, Guillermo visited Maring’s Place to ask Alicia for money, but the owner, Maring (who was fantastically creative enough to name the bar after him), told him to go home and to leave Alicia alone because he was an old invalid. He proceeded to walk home empty handed, but upon passing Bonifacio Street, he
came across the Marasigan brothers who mocked him with the above stated
remark. The self-loathing Guillermo proceeded to Paty’s place and
downed give glasses of Tuba.
By nighttime of the same day, Guillermo returned to Maring’s Place
and did then and there stab Alicia several times. Realizing what he had
done, he ran to Gumarca and surrendered to the police there. He was
found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Quezon City of murder
attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, alevosia, and abuse of confidence and ungratefulness; The penalty for which is death; thus the automatic review of the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the victim should be given the benefit of the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, albeit his
relationship with the victim being merely a common-law marriage?
HELD:
Yes. By stare decisis, passion or obfuscation on the part of the offender must arise from legitimate and moral sentiments.
Since common-law marriages are considered unlawful in the Philippines,
Obfuscation, when relationship is illegitimate, cannot be appreciated as
a mitigating circumstance.
To answer this question, we must first differentiate the
circumstances of this case with that of U.S. v Hicks. In the said case,
the common-law wife of Mr. Hicks terminated her relations with the
American, and contracted new relations with a certain corporal. Mr.
Hicks shot his ex-common-law-wife when she refused to go home with him
and resume their relationship. Since they were not married, she was
entitled to do so. What she did – cruel as it may be – was legal in the
eyes of law. Passion and obfuscation were not appreciated in such a
case, since:
- The common-law wife had a right to leave her common-law husband, as they were not united in holy matrimony. He had no right to compel her to go with him. Remember that the first requirement of passion or obfuscation is that there be an unlawful act, sufficient to produce diminution of self-control or the exercise of will power.
Returning now to the case at hand, what Guillermo was asking from
Alicia was that she (1) quit her job as a hostess; an ill-reputed
profession corroborated by her promiscuous relations with other men, and
(2) resume her job as a hostess.
The Supreme Court held that Alicia’s flat out refusal was an
exhibition of immorality itself. A monogamous illegitimate relationship
is definitely of higher standing than illicit relationship for the sake
of gain – or gainful promiscuity as the court put it.
This, coupled with the cruel words against him were enough to
constitute passion and obfuscation in the old soul. Thus, he is entitled
to a mitigating circumstance.