PEOPLE vs.

PANSENSOY
G. R. No. 140634. September 12, 2002
CARPIO, J.

ISSUE:
WON, treachery co-exist with passion and obfuscation.

FACTS:
Prosecution: Analie Pansensoy, 28-year old, is the legitimate wife of appellant and the eye
witness of the shooting incident. She testified that she had been living-in with the victim, Hilario
Reyes, since February 1994. On May 8, 1994, she and Hilario were in the house they were
renting at Lumang Bayan, Antipolo, Rizal. As they were resting inside the house, they heard a
knocked on the door and she stood to open it. Then she saw the appellant as she open the
door, holding a gun. She tried to wrest the gun away from the appellant but she failed. Hilario
went out and both men sat on the bench, facing each other. Appellant asked Hilario if he loves
his wife and if he is single. Hilario answered in affirmative and appellant shot Hilario in the
forehead. An autopsy was done by Dr. Aranas who revealed that a single gunshot wound on the
forehead was the cause of death of the victim and he opined that the entry shows the area of
smudging which indicates that Hilario was shot at close range.

Defense: The appellant, who is working a security guard, said that on his way home on May 8,
1994, he met his friend named Bisaya and was told that he saw his wife with a guy named Tisoy
(Hilario) together with their children. They went immediately to the house pointed by Bisaya and
the appellant kicked the door. He saw his wife together with a man lying on the bed and just clad
with underwear. He pulled his wife out of the room and he saw Tisoy pulled a gun from the table.
Both men grappled for the possession of the gun and Tisoy was subsequently hit in the
forehead. It was Tisoy who was holding the trigger when the gun fired and hit him on the head.
The appellant claimed for a self-defense.

The RTC accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of Analie and rejected the claim of
self defense of the defendant. It was also found that the .38 caliber revolver used in the crime
was the gun being issued by the appellants employer. Thus, appellant was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. Hence, this appeal.

DECISION:
No. Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation. In the case at bar, the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation was appreciated in appellants favor. According to
appellant, when he confirmed with his own two eyes that his wife was cheating on him, he lost
his self-control and that his actuation arose from a natural instinct that impels a husband to
protect his wounded feelings. Under any circumstances, it is easy to see how appellant acted
with obfuscation because of jealousy upon discovering his legitimate wife in the company of
another man and the brazen admission by this man that he loved his wife. The situation was
aggravated by the fact that Analie brought their child along to her trysting place with
Hilario. Extreme emotional pain could result from such a situation and produce such passion
and anguish in the mind of a betrayed husband as to deprive him of self-control. To be blinded
by passion and obfuscation is to lose self-control. In this case, there is a clear showing that
there were causes naturally tending to produce such powerful passion as to deprive the
accused of reason and self-control.
The Court further stated that to qualify the crime for murder, either any of treachery and evident
premeditation must be present. The RTC failed to state the qualifying circumstance of murder. In
view of the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation favoring the
appellant, the court have to rule out treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying
circumstances. Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation. The reason for this is
that in passion, the offender loses his control while in treachery the means employed are
consciously adopted. One who loses reason and self-control cannot deliberately employ a
particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of the crime. Similarly, the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot co-exist with the circumstance of
passion and obfuscation. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act
must be preceded by calm thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a composed judgment.
Furthermore, the act producing the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission
of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the appellant might have regained
his equanimity. It appears that only a few minutes elapsed between the time appellant
discovered the two in the room and the killing. Thus, appellant can be given the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance. The Court further ruled that the appellant has no preconceived plan to
kill because it is negated by the circumstance of passion and obfuscation. Wherefore, the
decision of the RTC was modified finding the accused guilty in crime of homicide instead of
murder.
FULL TEXT:
FIRST DIVISION

[G. R. No. 140634. September 12, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO PANSENSOY, accused-

appellant.

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision [1] dated September 13, 1999 in Criminal
Case No. 94-11527 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73, convicting appellant
Roberto Pansensoy (appellant for brevity) of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the
victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P40,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral
damages.

The Charge

Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Rolando L. Gonzales filed an Information [2] charging appellant
with the crime of murder, committed as follows:

That on or about the 8th day of May, 1994, in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
armed with a handgun, with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident premeditation,
did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Hilario
Reyes y Inovero, hitting him on his forehead, thereby inflicting upon him a mortal gunshot
wound, which directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Arraignment and Plea

When arraigned on February 20, 1995, the appellant, assisted by his counsel, entered a
plea of not guilty.[3] Thereafter, trial on the merits followed.
 The Trial

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Analie Pansensoy, eyewitness to
the actual shooting of the victim; (2) Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, the medico-legal officer who
conducted the autopsy on the victim; (3) SPO1 Reynaldo Anclote, the police officer who
conducted the investigation of the incident; (4) Gregoria Reyes, mother of the victim; and (5)
Rogelio Fullente, neighbor of the victim. For its part, the defense presented the appellant as its
lone witness.

Version of the Prosecution

Analie Pansensoy (Analie for brevity), twenty-eight years old, is the legitimate wife of
appellant. She testified that she had been living-in with the victim, Hilario Reyes (Hilario for
brevity), since February 1994. On May 8, 1994, she and Hilario were in the house they were
renting at Lumang Bayan, Antipolo, Rizal. Hilario was lying down inside the house. She stood up
when she heard a knocking on the door. As she opened the door, she saw appellant holding a
gun. She embraced appellant and tried to wrest the gun away from him but she failed. Hilario
went out of the house and sat on a bench. Appellant approached Hilario and asked him if he
really loves his wife. Hilario answered in the affirmative. Appellant next asked Hilario if he was
still single. Hilario answered yes. Appellant counted one to three and at the count of three shot
Hilario. Hilario was hit on the forehead and sprawled on the ground.[4]
Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, physician, conducted the autopsy on the victim at the St. James
Funeral Parlor at past midnight on May 9, 1994. He found a single gunshot wound on the
forehead which was the cause of death. He opined that the entry shows the area of smudging
which indicates that Hilario was shot at close range. The distance of the muzzle of the gun from
the forehead could be less than three inches. He also opined that the person who fired the shot
and Hilario were facing each other.[5]
SPO1 Reynaldo Anclote, member of the Philippine National Police, conducted the
investigation on the shooting of Hilario. He took the statements of Gregoria Reyes and Analie in
the police station a day after the incident. He did not conduct an ocular inspection at the scene
of the crime.[6]
Gregoria Reyes (Gregoria for brevity), mother of Hilario, testified that she came to know
about the death of her son through a neighbor, Roger. She found out that her son was dead
upon arrival at the hospital and was taken to the funeral parlor. She saw the gunshot wound on
the forehead of her son. On the same night of May 8, 1994, she went to the police station where
she saw Analie give her statement to the police. She also gave her statement to the police. As a
result of the death of her son, she incurred expenses in the amounts of P10,000.00 and
P30,000.00 for the funeral and the burial, respectively. At the time of his death, her son was
managing two passenger jeepneys, one of which he was also driving. He was earning P800.00
a day.[7]
Rogelio Fullente (Rogelio for brevity), fifty-six years old, is a co-driver of Hilario in the
Antipolo-Marikina route. He was the neighbor referred to by Gregoria in her testimony as Roger,
who reported to her the shooting incident. He has known Hilario for ten to fifteen years. In the
evening of May 8, 1994, he was in his home in Lumang Bayan which was about ten meters
away from where Hilario was staying. According to him, their houses were separated by a
driveway which could accommodate one jeep. He heard several knocks and opened the door of
his house. When he opened the door he found out that somebody was knocking on the door of
Hilario and ordering him to come out. The first time he saw the man knocking on Hilarios door,
the man was not carrying anything. When he heard a gunshot, he opened the door again and
saw the man carrying something before he left. Rogelio further narrated that when the man
asked Hilario to come out, Hilario was standing by the door. The man asked Hilario if he loved
his wife and Hilario answered yes. The man then fired a shot and Hilarios head bent forward
before he fell down. He does not know the caliber of the gun but just heard the gunshot. He
went to the parents of Hilario to report the incident. On cross-examination, Rogelio testified that
when appellant knocked on the door, it was Hilario who opened the door. Hilario sat on the
bench by the door. When Hilario answered yes to appellants question of whether he loved his
wife, appellant immediately fired a shot. Rogelio testified that he watched appellant fire the shot
and then left to report the incident to the parents of Hilario.[8]

Version of the Defense

As expected, the defense had a different version as told by the appellant himself.
Appellant, twenty-eight years old and a security guard, invoked self-defense in his
testimony. He testified that Analie is his wife and they have three children. According to him,
their relationship as husband and wife was normal.
On May 8, 1994, at about 6:30 p.m., a certain Amadong Bisaya (Bisaya for brevity) told him
that he saw his wife with their youngest child and Tisoy, referring to Hilario, board a jeep on their
way to Lumang Bayan. He had met Bisaya before when the latter told him some time in April
1994 that he always saw appellants wife with another man. He asked Bisaya to accompany him
to Lumang Bayan where Bisaya pointed to the room where his wife and Tisoy entered.
The appellant kicked the door of the room and there he found his wife and Tisoy lying
beside each other. They were only clad in their underwear. He dragged his wife out of the room
by her hair and while doing so, he saw Tisoy pull a gun from the table which was covered with
clothes. He let go of his wife and jumped on Tisoy to grab the gun.
While they struggled for possession of the gun he hit the testicles of Tisoy with his
knees. Tisoy fell on his knees but was still holding the gun. Still grappling for possession of the
gun, appellant held on to the back portion of the gun and part of the trigger, while his other hand
held Hilarios hand which was holding the butt of the gun. When Hilario knelt down, appellant
was able to twist Hilarios hand and to point the barrel of the gun towards the latter.
The gun suddenly went off. At that moment, Tisoy was holding the trigger of the gun. Tisoy
was shot on the head and fell down. It was Tisoy who was holding the trigger when the gun fired
and hit him on the head. Tisoy was still holding the gun when he fell to the floor.
He confronted his wife and pulled her hair and slapped her. His wife was just seated in the
corner of the room. He asked her where their child was. But before she could answer, their child
went inside the room and embraced her mother very tightly. He tried to pull their daughter away
from Analie but the latter did not let go of the child. He told Analie that he would kill her too if she
did not release the child. He started to count one, two, which made his wife release their
daughter. He left the room with the child and proceeded to their house. Tisoy was still sprawled
on the ground face down when he left.[9]
 The Trial Courts Ruling

The trial court accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of Analie and rejected the
version of the appellant that he acted in self-defense. It found the testimony of Analie credible
and observed that she remained unperturbed during the cross-examination. The trial court also
noted that appellant, who was then a security guard, was charged by his employer with the
crime of qualified theft for the loss of a .38 caliber revolver. Appellant allegedly committed the
theft on May 8, 1994, the very same day the shooting incident happened. The gun used in
shooting the victim was not found at the scene of the crime but the slug recovered was that of
a .38 caliber revolver. Although appellant was subsequently acquitted of the charge, the trial
court considered this as evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. The trial court
further noted that appellant went into hiding from the time the shooting incident happened until
the case was filed in court on August 24, 1994.
The trial court pronounced judgment thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt with the crime of murder and is hereby sentenced to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The accused is hereby further ordered to pay the heirs of Hilario Reyes y Inovero the
amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity and P40,000.00 and P20,000.00 as actual or
compensatory and moral damages, respectively.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.[10]

Hence, the instant appeal.

The Issues

Appellant is before this Court raising the following assignment of errors:

I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ANY OF THE
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.

 First Issue: Self-Defense

Appellant insists that he acted in self-defense. Self-defense as a justifying circumstance

may exempt an accused from criminal liability when the following requisites are met, namely: (1)
there has been an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression are reasonably necessary; and (3) the person defending
himself has not provoked the victim into committing the act of aggression.[11] The burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence that the killing was justified is on the accused. [12] In
doing so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of
the prosecution.[13]
Appellant asserts that the unlawful aggressor was the victim and his death could be
attributed to himself alone. By his own testimony, appellant tried to prove unlawful aggression
on the part of Hilario. According to him, he kicked the door, and when it opened he saw his wife
and Hilario inside the room clad in their underwear. He pulled the hair of his wife and dragged
her outside while she was embracing him. At this point, Hilario pulled a gun from the table. He
let go of his wife, jumped on Hilario and grappled for possession of the gun. While trying to
wrest the gun from Hilario, he hit Hilarios testicles with his knees. Hilario fell on the floor but was
still holding the gun. When Hilario knelt down, appellant was able to hold and twist Hilarios
hand, pointing the gun towards the latter. The gun suddenly went off and Hilario was hit on the
head.
On the other hand, Analie testified that when she opened the door to their room, she saw
appellant holding a gun. She embraced appellant and tried to wrest the gun from him but
failed. Hilario went out and sat on a bench. Appellant approached him and asked him
questions. Appellant counted and, at the count of three, shot Hilario in the head.
The conflicting versions of the prosecution and of the defense as to who initiated the
aggression was settled by the trial court which gave full faith and credence to the testimony of
Analie over that of appellant. The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor
of the witnesses on the stand, was convinced of the truthfulness of Analies testimony and not
that of appellants.
Undeterred, appellants first assignment of error is focused on the sufficiency of the
evidence for the prosecution, questioning in particular the trial courts assessment of the
credibility of the prosecutions eyewitness, Analie. According to him, Analies testimony is flawed
as she insisted that she and appellant had been separated for more than three years but this is
belied by the fact that their youngest daughter is barely a year old. He also points out that
appellants version that he dragged his wife outside by pulling her hair was more believable and
in accord with human behavior rather than Analies version that appellant took time to interrogate
the victim regarding how much the latter loved his wife and other personal circumstances before
shooting him.
We find no reason to reverse or alter the evaluation of the trial court. We reiterate the time
tested doctrine that a trial courts assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great
weight even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence.[14] The alleged flaws in the testimony of Analie do not
serve to impair her credibility or diminish the truthfulness of her remarks as to who initiated the
aggression and fired the shot.
The allegedly incredible statements do not pertain to the act of killing, but rather to minor or
incidental matters which happened before and after the fact of killing. Analies testimony that she
had been separated from appellant for three years which, as pointed out by appellant, was
belied by the age of their youngest daughter, does not necessarily impair her credibility.Analies
3-year separation from appellant does not preclude Analies still having a child with appellant. As
to Analies version that appellant interrogated Hilario before shooting him, suffice it to say that it
is a matter of common observation that the reaction of a person when confronted with a
shocking or unusual incident varies.[15] As admitted by appellant himself, it was the first time he
saw his wife and Hilario together, veritably confirming what Bisaya had told him some time in
April 1994 that Bisaya always saw his wife with someone else. It was not at all strange for
appellant to have asked Hilario if he really loved his wife. Were we to agree with the appellant
and treat each strange or unusual event in the occurrence of a crime, such as appellants
interrogation of the victim, as basis for reasonable doubt, no criminal prosecution would prevail.
[16]

In any event, a thorough evaluation of the transcript of stenographic notes indicates that
Analie, as observed by the trial court, testified in a candid and straightforward manner as
follows:
Q: Why do you know said Hilario Reyes?
A: He is my live-in partner.
Q: When did you start to be the live-in partner of Hilario Reyes?
A: February 1994.
Q: Up to what time did you become to be the live-in partner of Hilario Reyes?
A: Three months.
Q: What was the reason why your live-in relationship lasted only three months?
A: Because Roberto killed Hilario Reyes.
Q: When was this Hilario Reyes killed?
A: May 8, 1994.
Q: Where was he killed?
A: At Lumang Bayan.
Q: In what municipality?
A: Lumang Bayan, Antipolo, Rizal.
Q: How did you know that he was killed?
A: He was shot by Roberto Pansensoy.
Q: How did you know that he was shot by Roberto Pansensoy?
A: Because Roberto went there and he was holding a gun.
Q: On May 8, 1994 that you said Hilario Reyes was shot by Roberto Pansensoy, where were
you?
A: Inside the house, sir.
Q: Whose is that house you are referring to?
A: We are renting that house.
Q: With whom?
A: Hilario Reyes.
Q: Before this Hilario Reyes was shot, what was he doing?
A: He was already lying down.
Q: Lying down where?
A: Inside the house, sir.
Q: How long was he lying down?
A: Around fifteen minutes.
Q: After lying down for fifteen minutes, what did you do next?
A: I stood up because Roberto knocked on the door.
Q: What happened next after this Roberto knocked on the door?
A: I opened the door and I saw Roberto holding a gun.
Q: After you opened the door and you saw Roberto holding a gun, what happened next?
A: I embraced Roberto and tried to wrestle the gun away from him but I did not succeed.
Q: When you were not able to succeed in taking the gun away from him, what happened
next?
A: Hilario went out, sat on the bench and Roberto approached him.
Q: And after Hilario went out and sat on the bench and Roberto approached him, what
happened next?
A: Roberto asked Hilario; do you really love my wife? And Hilario said, Yes.
Q: Who was this wife Roberto was referring to when he asked Hilario?
A: Thats me.
Q: After Hilario answered that he really loved his wife which is you that is being referred to,
what happened next?
A: Roberto asked Hilario; are you still single, are you not married?
Q: What was the response of Hilario if there was any?
A: He answered yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: Roberto counted one to three and at the count of 3 he shot Hilario.
Q: Was Hilario hit by the shot that was made by Roberto?
A: Hilario was hit on the forehead and he sprawled on the ground.[17]
Analie remained straightforward and consistent all throughout her cross-examination:
Q: Madam witness, you stated that you are the wife of the accused Roberto Pansensoy, is
that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you legally married to accused Roberto Pansensoy?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And if you remember, when were you married?
A: 1990.
Q: Where were you married?
A: At Negros Occidental.
Q: You stated that on May 8, 1994, you were at Lumang Bayan, Antipolo, Rizal, am I correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In what particular place at Lumang Bayan is that?
A: Inside the village.
Q: What were you doing then inside the village?
A: We are renting a house there.
Q: Who is your companion while renting that house?
A: Hilario Reyes.
Q: And who is this Hilario Reyes?
A: The victim.
Q: What is your relation with the victim?
A: Live-in partner.
Q: How long have you been living in together, Madam Witness?
A: Three months.
Q: On that date May 8, 1994 you stated a while ago that you were resting together with
Hilario Reyes, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Inside the room of the house being rented by Hilario Reyes?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was Hilario Reyes doing then?
A: He was laying (sic).
Q: Lying where?
A: Inside.
Q: Thereafter, what happened next while Hilario Reyes was resting?
A: I heard Roberto knock on the door.
Q: After which, what happened next, Madam Witness?
 A: I opened the door and I saw Roberto.
Q: What did you do upon seeing Roberto on the door?
A: He was holding a gun and I embraced him, because I wanted to take the gun away from
him.
Q: Is it not because you feel that Roberto Pansensoy might inflict harm on your living in
partner, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, I wanted to avoid trouble.[18]
From Analies testimony, it is all too apparent that the first requisite of self-defense is
absent. The unlawful aggression did not come from the victim but from appellant himself. The
aggression not having come from the victim, appellants claim of self-defense cannot
prosper. The trial court relied on Analies testimony to convict appellant and we find that her
testimony is sufficient to support appellants conviction.
As the legitimate wife of appellant, Analies testimony would have been disregarded had
appellant timely objected to her competency to testify under the marital disqualification
rule.Under this rule, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without
the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters direct descendants or
ascendants.[19] However, objections to the competency of a husband and wife to testify in a
criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as in the case of other witnesses
generally.[20] The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is
first offered as a witness.[21] In this case, the incompetency was waived by appellants failure to
make a timely objection to the admission of Analies testimony.
We note that Rogelio was presented to corroborate Analies testimony, but he gave a rather
confusing account of what he allegedly saw or heard on the night of the shooting. During his
direct examination, he claimed that he heard a gunshot, but on cross-examination he claimed
that he opened the door of his house and actually saw appellant shoot Hilario. In any event, it is
well-settled that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to
convict an accused.[22] On the other hand, a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably
appreciated, if it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also
extremely doubtful by itself[23] as in the instant case.
Moreover, appellants behavior after the incident runs contrary to his proclaimed
innocence. Appellants act of fleeing from the scene of the crime instead of reporting the incident
to the police authorities are circumstances highly indicative of guilt and negate his claim of self-
defense.[24]
Lastly, we find it unnecessary to consider as corroborative evidence the charge of qualified
theft for the loss of a .38 caliber revolver filed against appellant by his employer security
agency. The trial court discussed at length that the offense was committed on the same day the
shooting incident happened and that the slug recovered from the scene of the crime was from
a .38 caliber revolver. According to the trial court, while the gun was not recovered from the
scene of the crime, it was safe to assume that the accused had a gun when he went to the
place of the victim. While SPO1 Anclote testified regarding the nature of the slug, he admitted
that he never inspected the scene of the crime and that the slug was merely handed to him by
SPO2 Catanyag who was not presented in court to testify. Hence, reliance on this as evidence
of a circumstance connected with the crime rests on shaky ground and is superfluous in light of
Analies credible eyewitness account.
 Second Issue: Passion and Obfuscation

Appellant argues for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation in his favor. According to appellant, when he confirmed with his own two eyes that
his wife was cheating on him, he lost his self-control and that his actuation arose from a natural
instinct that impels a husband to protect his wounded feelings. There is basis for this claim.
In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the
following elements should concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such condition of mind; (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.[25]
Appellant was on his way home from his duty as a security guard when he met Bisaya who
told him that he saw his wife and youngest child board a jeepney with the victim,
Hilario.Appellant and Bisaya followed them. Appellant claims that he saw his wife and the victim
lying beside each other, clad only in their underwear. Analie claims that they were just resting
inside the house at the time appellant arrived. Under any of these two circumstances, it is easy
to see how appellant acted with obfuscation because of jealousy upon discovering his legitimate
wife in the company of another man and the brazen admission by this man that he loved his
wife. The situation was aggravated by the fact that Analie brought their child along to her trysting
place with Hilario. Extreme emotional pain could result from such a situation and produce such
passion and anguish in the mind of a betrayed husband as to deprive him of self-control. To be
blinded by passion and obfuscation is to lose self-control. [26] In this case, there is a clear
showing that there were causes naturally tending to produce such powerful passion as to
deprive the accused of reason and self-control.[27]
Furthermore, the act producing the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission
of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the appellant might have regained
his equanimity. It appears that only a few minutes elapsed between the time appellant
discovered the two in the room and the killing. Thus, appellant can be given the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.

Third Issue: Qualifying Circumstances

The Information alleges two qualifying circumstances: treachery and evident

premeditation. If appreciated, any one of these will qualify the killing to murder. However, the
trial court convicted appellant of murder without stating the circumstance which qualified the
killing to murder.
In view of our earlier pronouncement crediting in favor of appellant the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation, we have to rule out treachery and evident
premeditation as qualifying circumstances. Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and
obfuscation.[28] The reason for this is that in passion, the offender loses his control while in
treachery the means employed are consciously adopted. One who loses reason and self-control
cannot deliberately employ a particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of the
crime.[29]
Similarly, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot co-exist with the
circumstance of passion and obfuscation.[30] The essence of premeditation is that the execution
of the criminal act must be preceded by calm thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a composed judgment.[31]
In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG for brevity) submits that evident
premeditation is present to qualify the killing to murder. According to the OSG, premeditation is
apparent from the fact that appellant went to the scene of the crime already carrying the gun
which he used to shoot the victim. The OSG argues that while appellant may have been a
security guard, he had no legal justification for bringing the gun to the victims residence. His act
of bringing the gun to the crime scene is a clear indication of his preconceived plan to kill his
wifes lover. The elements of evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance are: (1) the time
when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.[32]
Verily, a finding that there was a preconceived plan to kill would negate passion and
obfuscation.
However, nothing in the records shows how and when appellant hatched his plan to kill, or
how much time had elapsed before appellant carried out his plan. On the contrary, appellant
was on his way home from his duty as a security guard when he chanced upon Bisaya who told
him that he saw his wife and child with Hilario. The mere fact that he brought his gun along or
happened to have it in his person does not, by itself, necessarily indicate a preconceived plan to
kill. The carrying of arms, if customary, does not indicate the existence of the second requisite.
In People vs. Diokno,[33] the Court held that the accused being from the province of Laguna and
it being customary on the part of the people of Laguna to carry knives, it cannot be inferred with
certainty that the intention of the accused who carried knives was to look for the deceased in
order to kill him. In like manner, it cannot be inferred with certainty that appellant already had the
intention to kill Hilario when appellant carried his gun on his way home after his duty as a
security guard.

Fourth Issue: Damages and Penalty

In view of the foregoing, the crime proven in this case is not murder, but only
homicide[34] with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The penalty for
homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. With the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the penalty which may be imposed pursuant to the
second paragraph of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its minimum
period. Appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law as well, which
allows the imposition of an indeterminate sentence, with the minimum period within the range of
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law and the maximum period within the range of the
latter after appreciating any modifying circumstances. Appellant can thus be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14)
years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.[35]
As for damages, the trial court ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the victim the following
amounts: P50,000.00 as indemnity; P40,000.00 as actual damages; P20,000.00 as moral
damages; and to pay the costs.
 Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we sustain the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of
Hilario. The amount is awarded without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime[36] and the consequent death of the victim.
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes
the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the
subject of an assignment of error or not. [37] Therefore, we delete the award of P40,000.00 as
actual damages. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual
amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on
the best evidence obtainable.[38] Since the prosecution did not present receipts to prove the
actual losses suffered, such actual damages cannot be awarded. We raise the award of moral
damages from P20,000.000 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence [39] for the pain
wrought by Hilarios death as testified to by Gregoria, mother of the victim.[40]
The trial court overlooked the award for loss of earning capacity despite the testimony of
Gregoria on her sons daily income. The absence of documentary evidence to substantiate the
claim for the loss will not preclude recovery of such loss. [41] Gregoria testified that her son had
been earning P800.00 daily as manager and driver of two passenger jeepneys.[42] This amounts
to P19,200.00 monthly excluding Sundays. The defense did not object to Gregorias testimony
on her sons earning capacity. The rule is that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and
may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[43] It was also established that
at the time of his death, Hilario was thirty-six (36) years old. [44] Loss of earning capacity is
computed based on the following formula:[45]
Net = life expectancy x Gross Annual - living expenses
Earning Income (GAI) (50% of GAI)
Capacity [2/3(80-age
at death)]
x = 2(80-36) x GAI - [50%of GAI]
3
x = 2(44) x P 230,400 - P 115,200
3
x = 88 x P 115,200
3
x = 29.33 x P 115,200

Net earning capacity = P 3,379,200.00

WHEREFORE, the judgment of Branch 73 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City in
Criminal Case No. 94-11527 is MODIFIED. Appellant ROBERTO PANSENSOY is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE as defined and penalized under Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code, instead of murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and
taking into account the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, appellant is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from Eight (8) years of prision
mayor minimum, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) years and Eight (8) months of reclusion
temporal minimum, as maximum. The award of actual damages of P40,000.00 is DELETED, but
appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00
and loss of earning capacity in the amount of P3,379,200.00.
SO ORDERED.