G.R. No. 27352, August 4, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTEBAN AUSTRIA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Esteban Austria was charged with homicide for killing Severino de los Reyes. The incident began when Jacinto de los Reyes (son of Severino), Casio Lopez, and Tomas Baeta drank wine at Austria’s store. After consuming four bottles, Jacinto requested another on credit, which Austria refused. Jacinto then struck Austria with a brass knuckle, leading to a fight where Austria, using a bolo, wounded Jacinto. Severino, upon learning his son was injured, rushed to the scene with his wife Ramona Garcia and daughter-in-law Calixta Ramos. Severino confronted Austria at the store door, rebuking him for attacking Jacinto. In response, Austria struck Severino with the bolo, inflicting a fatal wound on the neck. The trial court convicted Austria of homicide, considering the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of *reclusión temporal*.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in giving greater weight to the prosecution’s witnesses and in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation under Article 9, No. 7 of the Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

1. Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found no error in the trial court’s assessment. The prosecution witnesses (Ramona Garcia and Calixta Ramos) consistently testified that Severino arrived *after* the fight between Austria and Jacinto, and was killed when he confronted Austria. The defense’s claim that Severino and Jacinto jointly attacked Austria was unsupported, as defense witnesses did not mention Severino’s presence during the initial fight. The trial court’s reliance on the prosecution’s version was deemed reasonable.

2. Mitigating Circumstance of Passion and Obfuscation: The Court upheld the application of this mitigating circumstance. Austria, still agitated from the prior fight with Jacinto, was confronted by Severino in a hostile manner (rebuking him while holding a stick). This sudden provocation naturally produced passion and obfuscation, disturbing Austria’s mind and reducing his culpability. The trial court correctly considered the surrounding circumstances and Austria’s state of mind, consistent with jurisprudence (citing a Spanish Supreme Court decision of October 8, 1904).

Thus, the penalty imposed by the trial court was proper. The judgment was affirmed, with costs against Austria.