This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We likewise find the alleged mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation inexistent. The rule is that the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they arise from the same facts or motive.[113] In other words, if appellant attacked his victim in proximate vindication of a grave offense, he could no longer claim in the same breath that passion and obfuscation also blinded him. Moreover, for passion and obfuscation to be well founded, the following requisites must concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.[114] To repeat, the period of two (2) weeks which spanned the discovery of his wife's extramarital dalliance and the killing of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to reflect and cool off. | |||||