PEOPLE vs.
ABARCA (1) RPC Article 247 applies in this case
J. Sarmiento | September 14, 1987 | Digest by RMLP
NATURE: APPEAL from the decision of RTC Leyte
FACTS
Khingsley Koh and Jenny Abarca caught in the act of sexual intercourse
Khingsley Koh and Jenny Abarca, wife of Francisco Abarca, had an illicit relationship.
This began while Abarca was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar Exams.
On the morning of July 15, 1984, Abarca went to the bus station to fetch his daughter.
However, he was not able to catch the first trip. He went back at 2PM but the bus had
engine trouble and could not leave. He then went home and arrived at around 6PM.
Upon reaching home, Abarca found his wife and Koh having sex. When both noticed
Abarca, Jenny pushed Koh while Koh got his revolver. Abarca ran away.
Abarca went to look for firearm at Tacloban City. He got an M-16 rifle from PC Arturo
Talbo. He went back home around 6:30PM but Jenny and Koh were not there. Abarca
went to the hangout place of Koh. He found Koh playing mah-jong. Abarca fired three
shots on Koh. Koh was hit. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying the
adjacent room were also hit.
Koh died instantaneously. The Amparados survived.
Ruling of the RTC Palo, Leyte
The RTC held Abarca guilty of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder
and sentenced him to death. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Koh in the
sum of 30K and the Amparados in the sum of 20K.
The RTC considered the fact that Abarca’s act was caused by his wife’s illicit
relationship and ruled that he is deserving of executive clemency, not of a full pardon
but a commutation of his death sentence.
ISSUES
(1) WON RPC Article 247 applies in this case, hence the RTC erred in convicting
Abarca of murder – YES
(2) WON there was treachery in this case – NO
(3) WON Abarca is guilty of frustrated murder of the Amparados - NO
RATIO
There is no doubt that Abarca caught his wife and Koh having sex, as a result of
which, he went out to kill Koh in a fit of passionate outburst.
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;
2. That he kills any of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
These elements are present in this case. The RTC therefore erred in convicting
Abarca of murder.
Though 1 hour passed between catching his wife and shooting Koh, the shooting
must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of Koh by Abarca. Article
247 only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing his spouse in the act of infidelity. But
the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse and
not by any other external factor.
Art. 247 does not define an offense
In People vs. Araque, the Court held that Article 247 does not define a felony but
merely grants a privilege or benefit, amounting practically to an exemption, to a
legally married person or parent who shall catch his spouse or daughter having
sex and shall kill any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter or shall
inflict any serious physical injury upon them.
The penalty of destierro is intended more for the protection of the accused than a
punishment. And where there physical injuries other than serious are inflicted, the
offender is exempted from punishment. In effect therefore, Article 247 amounts to
an exempting circumstance for even where deaths or serious physical injuries
were inflicted; the penalty is greatly lowered as to result to no punishment at all.
(2) Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances cannot be qualified. Hence,
treachery cannot be appreciated in this case.
(3) Abarca did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Abarca was not
committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon Koh. Therefore, it cannot
be held that Abarca is liable for frustrated murder of the Amparados.
However, Abarca is not totally free from any liability. Granting the fact that he was
not performing a crime when he fired the shots at Koh, he cannot be entirely
without fault. It appears that before firing at Koh, he uttered warning words (“an
waray labot kagawas”). For the separate injuries suffered by the Amparados, the
SC imposed upon Abarca arresto mayor in its maximum period.
RULING
RTC Ruling is hereby MODIFIED.
Abarca is sentenced to 4M 21D to 6M of arresto mayor and to indemnify the
Amparados 16K for medication and 1.5K for loss earnings.