Scribd
Upload
69 views2 pages

People vs. Gelaver

Eduardo Gelaver admitted to killing his wife Victoria after catching her having sex with her paramour. Gelaver claimed he was overcome with passion and obfuscation upon seeing his wife with her lover. However, the court ruled that the passion and obfuscation could not be considered as a mitigating circumstance because the crime occurred almost a year after Victoria had abandoned the family home. While the court did find Gelaver voluntarily surrendered to authorities, it affirmed his conviction but increased the indemnity amount.

Uploaded by

Sarah Romano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views2 pages

People vs. Gelaver

Eduardo Gelaver admitted to killing his wife Victoria after catching her having sex with her paramour. Gelaver claimed he was overcome with passion and obfuscation upon seeing his wife with her lover. However, the court ruled that the passion and obfuscation could not be considered as a mitigating circumstance because the crime occurred almost a year after Victoria had abandoned the family home. While the court did find Gelaver voluntarily surrendered to authorities, it affirmed his conviction but increased the indemnity amount.

Uploaded by

Sarah Romano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE VS.

GELAVER

G.R. No. 95357. June 9, 1993.

DOCTRINE: The act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the
crime

By a considerable length of time.

FACTS:

Eduardo Gelaver admitted killing his wife, Victoria Gelaver y Pacinaba, whom he begot four children,

They lived together at their conjugal home before when she abandoned her family to live with her
paramour.

Galaver claimed that he did (killing his wife) so after catching her having carnal act with her paramour.

March 24, 1988, informed by his daughter where his wife and paramour lived (in front of the Sto. Niño
Catholic Church), upon entering the house, he saw his wife lying on her back and her paramour on top of
her, having Sexual intercourse. Her paramour immediately stood up, took a knife placed on top of the
bedside table and Attacked appellant. The latter was able to wrest possession of the knife and then used
it against the paramour, Who evaded the thrusts of the appellant by hiding behind the victim. Thus, it
was the victim who received the Stab intended for the paramour. As to why he continued to stab his
wife, appellant said that his mind had been “dimmed” or overpowered by passion and obfuscation by
the sight of his wife having carnal act with her Paramour.

Appellant faults the trial court in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of parricide,
instead Of the penalty of destierro for killing under exceptional circumstances pursuant to Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE:

WON passion or obfuscation is considerable when the crime was committed?

RULING:

The trial court erred in finding the presence of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation “as
a result of his (appellant’s) wife leaving their home and their children.” Before this circumstance may be
taken Into consideration, it is necessary to establish the existence of an unlawful act sufficient to
produce such a Condition of mind. The act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the
commission of the Crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have
recovered his equanimity. The Crime was committed almost a year after the victim had abandoned the
conjugal dwelling. However, The trial Court was correct in finding the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. Appellant, immediately after committing the
offense, voluntarily placed himself at the disposal of the police Authorities as evidenced by the entry in
the official police blotter

WHEREFORE, the Judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED except with the MODIFICATION that the
indemnity, be increased to P50,000.00 (People v. Sison, 189 700 [1990]).

SO ORDERED.

You might also like