Related Provisions:

US v De la Cruz
Mitigating Circumstances Passion or Obfuscation
Date: 29 March 1912
Ponente: Carson, J.
SUMMARY:
Defendant, in the heat of passion, killed his querida
(concubine or lover) upon catching her red-handed in
the arms of another. Trial court convicted defendant of
homicide and sentenced him to 14 years 8 months 1 day
of reclusion temporal. Supreme Court found
extenuating/mitigating circumstances in the commission
of the act of homicide therefore reducing defendants
sentence to 12 years 1 day of reclusion temporal.
ISSUES:
1. WoN there is an extenuating/mitigating
circumstance present - YES
FACTS:
1. Defendant (De la Cruz), in the heat of passion,
killed his querida when he caught her redhanded in carnal communication with a mutual
acquaintance.
2. Trial court found defendant guilty of homicide
without any extenuating circumstances present.
Defendant was sentenced to 14 years 8 months
1 day of reculsion temporal (medium degree of
penalty prescribed by the code).
HOLDING:
1. YES. There is an extenuating circumstance
present in the case. The Court is of the opinion
that the defendant acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion
and obfuscation when he caught his querida in
carnal communication with a mutual
acquaintance.

The Court mentioned the view taken by the

Supreme Court of Spain regarding a case with
similar state of facts:
A man who kills a woman (his lover) for having
caught her in her underclothes with another
man and afterwards shoots himself inflicting a
serious wound should be responsible for the act
but with extenuating circumstance considered
because he acted as such due to strong emotion
which impelled him to perform the criminal act.
The situation presents a sufficient impulse in the
natural and ordinary course to produce the
violent passion and obfuscation which the law
regards as a special reason for extenuation.
The Court also differentiated this case from US v
Hicks:
In the Hicks case, the cause of the
alleged passion and obfuscation of the
defendant
was
his
vexation,
disappointment, and deliberate anger
due to the womans refusal to live with
him. The act of killing was done with
premeditation and preparation. Prior to
the accomplishment of his criminal
design, he acted properly in front of his
victim in order to mask his true
intentions.
In this case, the impulse upon which
defendant acted and which naturally
produced passion and obfuscation was
because of the sudden revelation that
she was untrue to him and his

Subsection 7, Art. 9 (penal code

imposed back then):
The following are extenuating or
mitigating circumstances:
Xxx
That of having acted upon an impulse
so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion and obfuscation

discovery of her in flagrante in the arms

of another.
RULING:
Modified by the finding that the commission of the crime
was marked with the extenuating circumstance set out
in subsection 7 of article 9, and by the reduction of the
penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of
reclusion temporal to twelve years and one day of
reclusion temporal, the judgment of conviction and the
sentence imposed by the trial court should be and are
hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against
the appellant.