PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. FRANCISCO ABARCA, accused-appellant,

G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987
153 SCRA 735

1. Legal Issue

Shall the accused suffer the penalty of arresto mayor subject by his criminal liability?

2. Legal Facts

That on or about 15th day of July 1984 in the city of Tacloban Leyte Philippines, the accused Francisco
Abarca went to the bus station and travel to Dolores Eastern Samar to fetch his daughter in the morning.
Unfortunately, the trip was delayed at 2 pm because of his failure to catch the trip plus the engine trouble
which causes him to proceed at his fathers house, and then later went home. When he reaches home the
accused caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with Khingsley Koh in the meantime his wife and
Koh notice him, that makes her wife push her paramour and got his revolver. Abarca peeping above the
built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away to look for a firearm at the PC soldiers house to where
he got the M-16 rifle. The accused lost his wife and Koh in vicinity at his house and immediately proceeded
to a mahjong house where he caught the victim aimed and shoot Koh with several bullets on his different
parts of his body causing Mr. Khingsley Kohs instantaneous death. By that time, Arnold and Lina
Amparado had inflicted multiple wounds due to stray bullets causing Mr. Amparados one and one-half
month loss of working capacity including his serious hospitalization and the latters wife who had slighter
physical injuries from the incident. The RTC hereby sentenced Abarca to death for Murder with double
Frustrated Murder and must indemnify the Amparado Spouses and Heirs of Kho.

3. Holding

The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision of destierro to arresto mayor from the lower court
sentencing four months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor indemnifying Amparado spouses for
expenses and damages.

4. Reasoning

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, the rule presupposes that the act done
amounts to a felony. The accused-appellant is totally free from any responsibility performing an illegal act
when he fired shots at the victim but he cannot be entirely without fault. It appears that before firing at
the deceased, he uttered warning words which is not enough of a precaution to absolve him for the
injuries sustained by the Amparados. The acts of execution which should have produced the crimes of
murders as a consequence, nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will;
nonetheless, the Court finds negligence on his part. He is liable under the first part, second paragraph, of
Article 365 that is less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence. For the separate
injuries suffered by the Amparado spouses impose upon the accused-appellant arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum period to being the graver penalty.