GR L 18792; (February, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18792. February 28, 1964.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO BELLO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Guillermo Bello, was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Quezon for the killing of his common-law wife, Alicia Cervantes. The trial court’s decision cited aggravating circumstances including nighttime, abuse of confidence, and superior strength, offset only by voluntary surrender, and imposed the death penalty. The factual findings, unchallenged by both the prosecution and defense, established that Bello, an older man, lived with the younger Cervantes. Financial difficulties led him to have her work as a hostess at Maring’s Place. His jealousy intensified after witnessing her with another man and hearing a public remark that she was being used for prostitution. On the night of May 20, 1958, after drinking and being refused money by Cervantes who insulted him, Bello entered Maring’s Place, held her from behind, and stabbed her multiple times before surrendering to authorities.
ISSUE
The core issue is the correct classification of the crime and the proper appreciation of attendant circumstances, specifically whether the killing constituted murder or homicide and which mitigating or aggravating circumstances apply.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the judgment, convicting Bello of homicide, not murder. The legal logic proceeded from a meticulous review of the circumstances alleged to qualify or aggravate the crime. Treachery was absent because the fatal stab in the back occurred as the victim was fleeing, making it part of a continuous, indiscriminate attack, not a deliberate method to ensure defenselessness. Evident premeditation was not proven, as Bello’s habitual carrying of a knife and daily surveillance stemmed from jealousy, not a concrete plan to kill. Superior strength was not established, considering Bello’s age and infirmity versus the victim’s youth, with no evidence of a deliberate intent to exploit any physical advantage. Nighttime did not aggravate the crime as it was not sought for the purpose and the crime scene was well-lit.
The Court affirmed the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Crucially, it also recognized the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The provocation was sufficiently strong: it arose from the victim’s insulting refusal to abandon her promiscuous profession and return to their monogamous relationship, compounded by the earlier public humiliation regarding her conduct. The Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that this passion was “immoral and unworthy,” distinguishing Bello’s desire to restore their exclusive union from the victim’s gainful promiscuity. With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was reduced. Bello was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 10 years of prision mayor and ordered to pay an indemnity.