A.M. No. P-13-3171 - IN RE: Sales

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-13-3171)

Factual Background

Francisco Abarca returned to his residence in Tacloban City on the afternoon of July 15, 1984, and discovered his wife, Jenny, engaged in sexual intercourse with Khingsley Paul Koh. The wife and Koh became aware of the accused's presence; Koh then obtained a revolver and the accused fled. The accused later procured an M-16 rifle from a PC soldier, C2C Arturo Talbo, and proceeded to a mahjong session where Koh was playing. The accused fired several shots at Koh, hitting Koh fatally and striking Arnold Amparado and Lina Amparado, who occupied an adjacent room. Koh died instantaneously from multiple gunshot wounds. Arnold underwent surgery to remove a bullet and was incapacitated for one and one-half months, incurring P15,000 in medical expenses; Lina sustained injuries from bullet fragments and incurred P1,000 in medical expenses.

Trial Court Proceedings

On arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court found Francisco Abarca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder and, invoking Art. 63, sentenced him to death and ordered indemnities of P30,000 to the heirs of Khingsley Paul Koh and P20,000 to the complainants spouses Arnold and Lina Amparado. The trial court noted the accused’s provocation and disturbance of his reasoning faculties upon discovering the illicit intercourse and recommended executive clemency to the President through the Ministry of Justice.

Assignments of Error on Appeal

The accused-appellant assigned two errors: first, that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime as charged instead of entering a judgment of conviction under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code; and second, that the trial court erred in finding that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

The accused-appellant maintained that his act fell within the exceptional circumstances contemplated by Article 247, and thus the trial court should have applied that provision rather than convicting him of murder. The Solicitor General recommended that Article 247 apply, characterizing the killing as death inflicted under exceptional circumstances, but also urged that the more severe offense of double frustrated murder be recognized and that the appropriate penalty therefore be reclusion temporal under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Legal Analysis — Applicability of Article 247

The Court reviewed the elements of Article 247 — that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another and kills any of them in the act or immediately thereafter — and found those elements present. The Court considered the lapse of about one hour between the discovery and the shooting to be a continuation of the accused’s pursuit and held that the killing was the proximate result of the overwhelming outrage experienced upon discovery; the article’s requirement of being "immediately" after does not demand instantaneous action but rather that the killing proceed from the same blind impulse. The Court further examined prior jurisprudence, notably People v. Araquel, and concluded that Article 247 does not define a distinct crime but grants an exempting privilege or benefit that, in case of death or serious physical injuries, reduces punishment practically to no punishment, or to the special penalty of destierro. Consequently, the trial court erred in convicting the accused of murder.

Legal Analysis — Effect on Qualifying Circumstances

Because inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is an exempting circumstance and not a punishable offense, it cannot be qualified by aggravating circumstances. The Court therefore held that treachery could not be appreciated in this case. The finding of treachery by the trial court was accordingly set aside.

Liability for the Injuries to the Amparados

The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s recommendation to convict the accused of double frustrated murder for the injuries inflicted upon Arnold and Lina Amparado. The Court reasoned that the rule holding an offender responsible for all consequences of his act presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony. Because the killing of Koh was considered an act under exceptional circumstances and thus not a punishable murder, the accused was not committing murder when he fired and therefore could not be held guilty of frustrated murder for bystander injuries. Nevertheless, the Court found the accused negligent. The Court concluded that the accused must answer for less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence under the first part, second paragraph, of Article 365. For the separate injuries to the Amparado spouses, the Court imposed arresto mayor (in its medium and maximum periods) but constrained to the maximum period, noting arresto mayor is the graver penalty than destierro.

Disposition and Amendment of Sentence

The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision. It removed the conviction for murder and the death sentence and sentenced Francisco Abarca to four months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor. The period of his prior confinement was ordered credited against this penalty. The Court ordered indemnity to Arnold and Lina Amparado in the sum of

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-13-3171)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted the case against Francisco Abarca for homicide-related offenses.
The Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte convicted the accused and sentenced him to death for the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.
The case was elevated to the Court because of the imposition of the death penalty.
Following approval of the new Constitution abolishing the penalty of death and commuting existing death sentences, the Court required the accused to state whether he wished to pursue the appeal.
The accused-appellant informed the Court that he wished to continue the appeal.

Key Factual Allegations

The evidence showed that Khingsley Paul Koh had an illicit relationship with the accused's wife, Jenny, while the accused was in Manila.
On July 15, 1984 the accused discovered his wife and Koh engaged in sexual intercourse at his residence in Tacloban City.
The accused left, obtained an M-16 rifle from PC soldier Arturo Talbo, and proceeded to a mahjong session where Koh was present.
The accused fired several shots at Koh, who died instantaneously from multiple gunshot wounds to the head, trunk, and abdomen.
Arnold and Lina Amparado, occupants of an adjacent room, were also struck and sustained gunshot wounds that were treated surgically and medically.
Arnold Amparado incurred medical expenses of P15,000 and was incapacitated for one and one-half months, while Lina Amparado spent P1,000 for medical treatment.

Charges and Information

The amended information charged the accused with Murder with Double Frustrated Murder alleging deliberate intent, evident premeditation, treachery, and that he was armed with an unlicensed M-16 rifle.
The information alleged that the accused shot Koh repeatedly, causing his instantaneous death, and also inflicted gunshot wounds upon Lina Amparado and Arnold Amparado which would have caused death but for timely medical assistance.

Trial Court Decision

On March 17, 1986 the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime charged.
The trial court sentenced the accused to death pursuant to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code and Art. 48 in relation thereto.
The trial court ordered indemnity of P30,000 to the heirs of Koh and P20,000 to Arnold and Lina Amparado and recommended executive clemency to the President.

Assignments of Error

The accused-appellant assigned error in convicting him for murder instead of entering judgment under Article 247 of the