This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-11-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the Solicitor-General's contention that the trial court erred in crediting accused-appellant with the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation is meritorious. This circumstance is considered mitigating because by reason of causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.[20] In order that this circumstance may be appreciated, the defense must show (a) an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (b) said act which produced the obfuscation must not be so far removed from the time of commission of the crime, because after a considerable length of time, the perpetrator might have recovered his equanimity.[21] Furthermore, it is necessary to show that the passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge.[22] | |||||