G.R. No. 7094 - People vs. De la Cruz

The defendant, Hilario de la Cruz, was charged with homicide for the killing of a woman who was his querida (concubine or lover).
The killing occurred when the defendant discovered the deceased in flagrante delicto, engaged in carnal communication with a mutual acquaintance.

The trial court found that the crime was committed without any aggravating or extenuating circumstances.
The defendant’s action was, however, marked by an intense outburst of violent passion due to the sudden revelation of infidelity.
The key factual finding was that the defendant acted under an “impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation,” as provided in subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code.

At trial, the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the accused for homicide, leading to a sentence of fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.
The appellate review raised the issue of whether the extenuating circumstance under article 9, subsection 7, should have been considered.
The court compared the facts of the case with:

A precedent from the Spanish Supreme Court, which found that acting in a state of violent passion due to a provocation (such as discovering a loved one’s infidelity) is a sufficient basis for extenuation.
The U. S. vs. Hicks case, where the circumstances of loss of self-control did not stem from legitimate feelings but from calculated, premeditated intent.

The demonstration of sudden passion and obfuscation upon discovering the woman with another man.
The natural and ordinary course of events led to a loss of control, which, under the Penal Code, is recognized as an extenuating circumstance.
Recognition by the appellate court that the facts warranted the application of the extenuating circumstance despite the trial court’s initial assessment.

Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the extenuating circumstance of acting under “passion and obfuscation” as provided in subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code.
Whether the sentence imposed (fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal) was disproportionate given the mitigating factor of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime.
How the case should be reconciled with previous decisions such as U. S. vs. Hicks, particularly regarding the origins of the defendant’s loss of self-control—legitimate emotional provocation versus premeditated intent.