THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO BASALO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Basalo

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Domingo Basalo for the killing of his mistress, Irinea Naraño, with a bolo. The trial court convicted him of homicide and credited him with the extenuating circumstance of provocation and threats on the part of the offended party. On appeal, the appellant asked the Supreme Court to add the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation and to reduce the penalty by one degree. The case matters because it states a rule every reviewee must carry: when the facts that would support obfuscation are the very facts that already support the mitigating circumstance of provocation, the two are one and the same mitigating circumstance and cannot be counted twice.

Procedural History

Domingo Basalo was charged with the crime of homicide before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After trial, the court below found him guilty of homicide, appreciated in his favor the extenuating circumstance of provocation and threats on the part of the offended party, and sentenced him to suffer twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of 1,000 pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation should also be considered in his favor and that the penalty should therefore be reduced by one degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, with costs against the appellant.

Facts

On the evening of January 27, 1928, in the barrio of Medio-Once, municipality of Toledo, Province of Cebu, Domingo Basalo returned home and was severely reprimanded by his mistress, Irinea Naraño, for having bought a sweater for his son of a former marriage without her consent. She also accused him of having spent his money on women.

The defendant left the house, but Irinea followed him and continued her scolding, and she threatened to take his life. He went home again, armed himself with a bolo, and went to a small cabin in the same town which he used as a storehouse for bananas. Irinea followed him once more and renewed her abuse, slapping him in the face and throwing stones at him.

Thereupon the defendant attacked her with his bolo, inflicting wounds from which she died immediately. The information alleged that he intentionally, maliciously, and criminally attacked his mistress with a bolo, inflicting wounds upon her in various parts of her body which caused her instant death.

Issues

• Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation may be appreciated in favor of the appellant in addition to the extenuating circumstance of provocation and threats on the part of the offended party.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court should be reduced by one degree on that account.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text. It applies the rule on mitigating circumstances as illustrated by Spanish jurisprudence, and it cites one authority, which provides:

Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain, March 7, 1871.

This citation is the sole authority on which the Court rests its holding that obfuscation and provocation, when founded on the same facts, are one and the same mitigating circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there is no merit in the contention that obfuscation should be considered in addition to provocation and threats. The Court reasoned that the facts upon which obfuscation might rest are the same facts upon which the extenuating circumstance of provocation is based, and they must therefore be regarded as one and the same mitigating circumstance. It relied on the Spanish sentence of March 7, 1871, for this proposition.

On the second issue, the Court held that the penalty should not be reduced by one degree, because the additional mitigating circumstance the appellant invoked was not a separate circumstance at all. The appealed judgment was in accordance with the facts and with the law, and the Court affirmed it with costs against the appellant.

Doctrine

A mitigating circumstance cannot be counted twice. When the facts that would support obfuscation are the same facts that support the mitigating circumstance of provocation and threats on the part of the offended party, the two must be regarded as one and the same mitigating circumstance, and no additional reduction of the penalty follows. The rule is stated in the decision as follows:

The facts upon which obfuscation might rest are the same as those upon which the extenuating circumstance of provocation is based and must therefore be regarded as one and the same mitigating circumstance.

For the Bar answer, the principle is this: identity of factual basis bars double appreciation. Counsel who pleads obfuscation must show facts distinct from those already credited as provocation or threats; otherwise the plea adds nothing and the penalty stands.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment in full, with costs against the appellant, Domingo Basalo.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that obfuscation and provocation resting on the same facts are one and the same mitigating circumstance. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate will double count mitigating circumstances that share a single factual basis.