Case Digest: People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, September 14, 1987

          Death under exceptional circumstances | Criminal Law

Facts:

Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. Upon reaching home, the accused found his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away.

The accused looked for a firearm. He went to the house of a PC soldier and got an M-16 rifle. He went back to his house but he was not able to find his wife and Koh there. He proceeded to the "mahjong session" as it was the "hangout" of Kingsley Koh. The accused found Koh playing mahjong.

He fired at Kingsley Koh three times with his rifle. Koh was hit and died instantaneously. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the room where Koh was playing mahjong were also hit by the shots fired by the accused.

Trial Court: Guilty of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.

Issues:

I. WoN the lower court erred in convicting the accused for the crime as charged instead of entering a judgment of conviction under article 247 of the revised penal code.

II. WoN the lower court erred in finding that the killing was amended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

III. WoN the Solicitor General is correct in finding double frustrated murder for the physical injuries suffered by Lina Amparado and Arnold Amparado who were caught in the crossfire.

Held:

I. We agree with the Solicitor General that Art. 247 applies in the instant case. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. 

Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. 

It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. 

But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.

II. It shall likewise be noted that inflicting death under exceptional circumstances, not being a punishable act, cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying circumstances, We cannot accordingly appreciate treachery in this case.

III. We disagree. The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony.

Here, the accused-appellant was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased. 

Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot therefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados. 

We nonetheless find negligence on his part. Accordingly, we hold him liable under the first part, second paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence.

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while the daughters are living with their parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.

Article 247 prescribes the following elements: 

(1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and 

(2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. 

Penalty: Arresto mayor,  P16,000.00 hospitalization expense, P1,500.00 loss of earning capacity.

Recit Version:

Facts:

The accused, Francisco Abarca, found his wife Jenny and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When Koh pulled out a revolver, Abarca fled and later obtained an M-16 rifle from a PC soldier. He went to the "mahjong session" where Koh was and fired three shots at him, killing him instantly. Arnold and Lina Amparado, who were in an adjacent room, were also hit and injured by the shots.

Trial Court: Guilty of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.

Issues:

I. WoN the lower court erred in convicting the accused for the crime as charged instead of entering a judgment of conviction under article 247 of the revised penal code.

II. WoN the lower court erred in finding that the killing was amended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

III. WoN the Solicitor General is correct in finding double frustrated murder for the physical injuries suffered by Lina Amparado and Arnold Amparado who were caught in the crossfire.

Held: 

Art.247 applicable. Guilty of less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence. 

Penalty: Arresto mayor,  P16,000.00 hospitalization expense, P1,500.00 loss of earning capacity.

I. Art. 247 applies in the instant case.

Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant.

II. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances, not being a punishable act, cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying circumstances, We cannot accordingly appreciate treachery in this case.

III.  Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot therefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados. 

We nonetheless find negligence on his part. Accordingly, we hold him liable under the first part, second paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence.