G.R. No. 25338 , September 9, 1926
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMEON SOLANGA, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: J. Ostrand

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Simeon Solanga, was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon for killing David Gupalao. The prosecution’s primary evidence was Solanga’s extrajudicial confession before the justice of the peace, wherein he admitted that upon returning home, he found his live-in partner, Catalina Habitan, having sexual intercourse with the deceased. A fight ensued after Gupalao struck him and tried to grab his bolo, leading Solanga to inflict multiple fatal wounds on Gupalao. At trial, however, Solanga presented a different version, claiming he found Gupalao attempting to rape Catalina, acted in defense, and that Gupalao accidentally impaled himself on the bolo during the struggle. Catalina initially corroborated Solanga’s trial testimony but was impeached by her prior sworn statement, given right after the incident, which supported the prosecution’s narrative and indicated Solanga attacked Gupalao without provocation.

ISSUE

Whether the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation (Article 9, No. 7, Revised Penal Code) and lack of education and instruction (Article 11, RPC) are applicable to reduce the penalty for homicide.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. The Court found that the evidence established Solanga discovered his live-in partner and the deceased in a compromising situation, which constituted a powerful impulse producing passion and obfuscation, a mitigating circumstance under Article 9(7). Additionally, considering Solanga’s lack of instruction and education, and the fact that in his backward community, such a consensual union carried moral sanction akin to marriage, the Court applied the mitigating circumstance under Article 11. With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was reduced by one degree under Article 81(5). Consequently, the penalty was reduced from *reclusion temporal* to six years and one day of *prision mayor*. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.

NOTE: Justice Villamor dissented, believing the evidence justified applying Article 423 (par. 1) of the Penal Code, which prescribes a lighter penalty (*destierro*) for a spouse who kills a person caught in the act of having sexual intercourse with the other spouse. The majority, however, did not apply this provision as Solanga and Catalina were not legally married.