THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CONSTANCIO L. CAUYAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Constancio L. Cauyan was convicted by the then Court of First Instance
of Quezon of the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 14735 and of
frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 14737. In the murder case, said
accused was sentenced “to suffer twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal,
with the accessory penalties provided by law; to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Claudia Amat in the sum of P6,000.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.” In the
frustrated murder case, he was sentenced “to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of from two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law; and to pay the costs.”

From his conviction in both cases, Constancio L. Cauyan appealed to the
then Court of Appeals. In its resolution, dated January 18, 1971, the
appellate court certified to Us Criminal Case No. 14735 (CA-G.R. No.
06224-Cr.) for final determination because “eliminating passion and
obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua.”

Prosecution evidence shows that about 9:30 in the evening of April 7,
1961, Claudia Amat, then 58 years old, was heard by her husband, Maximo
Patron, and her son, Andres Patron, shouting “Huag, pare! tama na,
pare!.” Andres Patron, 21 years old, rushed to the stairs of their house
where he saw appellant Constancio L. Cauyan stabbing his mother. When
appellant saw him he stabbed Andres on the armpit and other parts of his
body. Whereupon, Andres went to their yard and took a piece of wood
with which to defend himself and his mother. Appellant still holding
the knife ran after Andres who fell to the ground. The neighbors
shouted at him to rise up immediately as Cauyan might catch up with him
and kill him. Rising up, he continued to run and shouted for help.
Roman Natividad responded by firing his gun in the air to scare
appellant and to alarm the police. As this juncture, Cauyan stopped
chasing Andres.

Claudia Amat, who suffered four (4) stab wounds, one in the heart, and
contusions in the left leg, died few minutes thereafter. Andres
suffered several stab wounds also which could have caused his death were
it not for the timely and able medical assistance given him.

In his defense, appellant testified that it was Andres who first hit him
on the head and it was only then that he drew his knife and stabbed
Andres. During their struggle, Andres jumped back and his mother,
Claudia, who was holding him (Andres) was exposed and she was hit
instead by the stab blows. Thus, appellant contends that the knife
thrusts at Claudia were accidental; and, with respect to Andres, he
inflicted the wounds in legitimate self-defense.

The Special First Division of the then Court of Appeals with the then
Presiding Justice Salvador V. Esguerra, as the ponente, and with
Justices Ramon Nolasco and Manuel Barcelona, concurring, made the
following findings on how the stabbing occurred.

“After a careful study of the two versions, we are more inclined
to believe as true that given by the prosecution. As motive for the
stabbing, the prosecution contends that the appellant was actuated by
hate and resentment against the Patron family because the father of
Andres had bailed out a certain Rev. Fr. Palilio in connection with a
criminal case which the appellant had filed against the priest. But we
are not persuaded by this alleged motive in arriving at the conclusion
that Claudia was indeed stabbed in the manner and under the
circumstances given by the prosecution. The evidence is clear from the
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution that Claudia was
stabbed by appellant at the foot of the stairs of her house. When her
husband, Maximo Patron, rushed to her side upon hearing her cries,
Claudia told him ‘Ako ay hinarang ni Pareng Asing (referring to
Constancio Cauyan) sa makapanaog ng hagdanan at ako’y pinagsasaksak.”
When appellant failed to overtake Andres, appellant was heard to have
shouted ‘Kayo pala ay hanggang diyan, mga hayop kayo’ (referring to the
Patrons).

Andres Malanas, a barber, testified, among others, that before the
stabbing appellant went to his barber shop and sharpened his knife, and
when asked why he was so doing that, appellant answered that it was
necessary to keep the same sharp because he had many enemies.

The witnesses, most of whom were in the immediate neighborhood of
appellant and victims, appear not to have been actuated by bias,
interest, or bad motives, that would impugn the veracity of their
testimonies. Moments before the incident, appellant admitted having had
a drinking spree with a friend at which they drank one bottle of
whisky. Appellant’s claim that the stabbing of Claudia was accidental
cannot physically fit into any of the facts and situations duly
established. In the first place, Claudia received no less than four
stab wounds on different parts of her body. This circumstance alone
would be sufficient to belie the claim of accidental stabbing. True
indeed, appellant was boxed by Andres when the latter saw his mother
being mercilessly stabbed by appellant. But the fist blow was no match
against the pointed and sharp-bladed knife of appellant. And when
Andres was stabbed in the armpit and other parts of his body he looked
around and was able to pick up a piece of wood with which to defend
himself against appellant.

We agree with the trial court that in Criminal Case No. 14735 (CA-G.R.
No. 06224-CR) treachery had qualified the crime of murder. But we do
not accept its finding of passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance in favor of appellant. In sentencing appellant to the
minimum penalty of 20 years of reclusion temporal, the trial
court considered in his favor this mitigating circumstance for the
reason, according to the court, that Maximo Patron, husband of the
deceased, had bailed out Rev. Fr. Palilio against whom appellant had
filed a criminal case. We do not agree that the act of Maximo Patron of
having bailed out Rev. Fr. Palilio could have by its very nature
effectively caused passion and obfuscation upon appellant. An offended
party who feels sore and is enraged at the bondsman of one he charges
with a crime is a rare specimen of mankind. That behavior is not in
line with the natural tendencies and experience of an ordinary human
being. One who so reacts must have been harboring in his heart
something sinister against the bondsman which drove him to wreak
vengeance on the latter’s wife. This is not the kind of passion and
obfuscation contemplated by law as an extenuating circumstance in favor
of the accused.” (pp. 173-176, Rollo).

We fully agree with the appellate court in its rejection of passion and
obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant
Constancio L. Cauyan. In order that the circumstance of passion and
obfuscation can be considered, it is necessary to establish the
existence of an unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition of
mind, and it must be shown that the act which produced the passion and
obfuscation is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover
his normal equanimity (People vs. Gervacio, 24 SCRA 960; People vs.
Layson, 30 SCRA 92). In the case at bar, it was not unlawful on the
part of Maximo Patron, husband of the deceased Claudia, when he acted as
bondsman for Rev. Father Palilio whom appellant had criminally charged
in court. And, it has not been shown that the act of having bailed Fr.
Palilio was so proximate in point of time to the commission of the crime
as to preclude a sober realization of the wrongfulness of the course of
action taken by appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, appellant Constancio L. Cauyan, in Criminal Case No. 14735
(CA-G.R. No. 06224-CR), is guilty of the crime of murder and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Claudia Amat in the sum of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Acting Chairman), Plana, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), on leave.