G.R. No. L-7094, March 29, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HILARIO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Hilario de la Cruz was convicted of homicide for killing his querida (concubine). The evidence established that he killed her in the heat of passion upon discovering her in flagrante delicto (in the act) of having sexual intercourse with a mutual acquaintance. The trial court found no aggravating or extenuating circumstances and imposed the medium penalty of reclusion temporal (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day).

ISSUE

Whether the extenuating circumstance under Article 9, subsection 7 of the Penal Code”having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation”should be appreciated in favor of the accused.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, appreciating the extenuating circumstance under Article 9(7) of the Penal Code. The Court distinguished this case from U.S. v. Hicks, where the passion arose from an unworthy and immoral source (the woman’s lawful refusal to continue an illicit relationship). Here, the “impulse” was the sudden discovery of the victim’s infidelity and the shocking sight of her in the act of sexual intercourse with another man. This was deemed a “sufficient impulse” in the natural and ordinary course of events to produce the passion and obfuscation contemplated by law. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to the minimum degree of reclusion temporal, which is 12 years and 1 day. The judgment of conviction was affirmed as modified.

Note: Justice Moreland filed a separate concurring opinion, disagreeing with the application of the extenuating circumstance.