G.R. No. 95357 - People vs. Gelaver

The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee and Eduardo Gelaver as the accused-appellant.
Eduardo Gelaver was charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato, found Gelaver guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and required him to indemnify the heirs of his wife initially in the amount of P30,000.00, later modified to P50,000.00.

The crime occurred on or about March 24, 1988, at approximately 7:00 a.m., in Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Sto. Niño, South Cotabato.
According to the prosecution’s witness, Randy Mamon, there were shouts at the scene and a heated argument was observed involving Gelaver and another woman.
Mamon testified that Gelaver held the victim’s neck, dragged her, and stabbed her three times on the breast with a knife before fleeing toward the public market.

Eduardo Gelaver admitted to killing his wife, Victoria Gelaver y Pacinabao, but claimed that his actions were prompted by discovering her in an act of adultery.
He recounted that, after learning from his daughter about his wife’s alleged residence with her paramour, he immediately went to a house in front of the Sto. Niño Catholic Church.
Upon entering, he claimed to have seen his wife lying on her back with her paramour on top of her engaged in sexual intercourse.
Gelaver testified that after his wife pushed her paramour aside, the latter attempted to attack him with a knife—but in the ensuing struggle, the knife ended up fatally wounding his wife.
He attributed his continuous use of the knife to a state of “dimmed” reason brought about by passion and obfuscation.

The appellant’s narrative contains numerous inconsistencies regarding the sequence and location of events, such as conflicting accounts of where and when he encountered his wife and her paramour.
His failure to immediately report to the police the full circumstances surrounding the killing further undermined his version of events.
Testimonies from other witnesses, including his daughter, contradicted portions of his statement, notably the details surrounding the alleged house where the incident occurred.

Gelaver claimed two mitigating circumstances: voluntary surrender to the authorities and passion (or obfuscation) resulting from his wife’s extramarital affair.
While voluntary surrender was recognized, the trial court rejected the latter as the timeline and circumstances did not support a finding of passion directly caused by the wife’s actions.

Gelaver contended that his conduct should be mitigated under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code concerning killings under exceptional circumstances when a spouse catches his partner in adultery.
The court held that for Article 247 to apply, strict requisites must be met: the accused must be a legally married person or parent, must catch the spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse, and must act immediately, with no facilitation of the prostitution or consent to infidelity involved.
The evidence did not substantiate these requisites, rendering his claim untenable.

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict Eduardo Gelaver of parricide beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the inconsistencies in Gelaver’s testimony effectively nullified his claim of catching his wife in the act of adultery.
Whether the requisites for invoking exceptional circumstances under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code were met.
Whether the mitigating circumstances—voluntary surrender and passion or obfuscation—were appropriately evaluated and applied by the trial court.
Whether the modification increasing the indemnity payment from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 was justified.