Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23827)
Procedural History
The accused was charged by amended information with the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palo, Leyte convicted him of murder with double frustrated murder and imposed the death penalty, plus indemnities. Because the RTC imposed death, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. In light of the approval of the new Constitution abolishing the death penalty and commuting existing death sentences, the Court required the accused to indicate whether he wished to pursue the appeal; he elected to proceed.
Facts Found by the Trial Court and Prosecution Narrative
While the accused was in Manila for bar exam review, his wife allegedly began an illicit relationship with Koh. On July 15, 1984, the accused discovered his wife and Koh in the act of sexual intercourse at his residence. After leaving briefly, he obtained an M-16 rifle from PC soldier Arturo Talbo, returned to Tacloban, went to the mahjong session where Koh was playing, and fired three shots at Koh. Koh died instantly from multiple gunshot wounds. Arnold and Lina Amparado, occupying an adjacent room, were struck and wounded. Arnold incurred significant medical expenses and temporary incapacity; Lina also required hospitalization.
Issues Presented on Appeal
The accused-appellant raised two principal assignments of error: (I) that the RTC erred in convicting him of murder instead of applying Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (death inflicted under exceptional circumstances), and (II) that the RTC erred in finding the killing was attended by treachery. The Solicitor General recommended applying Article 247 and, to the extent the injuries to the Amparados constituted a separate offense, to convict for double frustrated murder and impose the appropriate penalties under Article 48 (complex crime rules).
Legal Character and Purpose of Article 247
The Court analyzed Article 247 and reaffirmed established precedents that Article 247 does not define a separate substantive crime. Rather, it is an exceptional circumstance that operates as a privilege or exemption that substantially reduces the legal consequences of acts that, absent the provision, would constitute homicide, murder, parricide or serious physical injury. When the provision’s conditions are satisfied and death or serious physical injury results, the statutory penalty is destierro (banishment); for physical injuries other than serious, the offender may be exempt from punishment. As such, Article 247 functions as an exempting or mitigating rule, not as an independent offense whose elements must be pleaded by the prosecution.
Application of Article 247 to the Facts
The Court concluded that the statutory prerequisites of Article 247 were satisfied: the accused was a legally married person who surprised his spouse engaged in sexual intercourse with another (Koh) and thereafter killed the other person. The lapse of time between discovery and the killing (approximately one hour) did not preclude application of Article 247; the Court explained that the statute requires the killing to be in the act or immediately thereafter but does not demand instantaneous action. The essential test is whether the killing was the proximate result of the outrage and the same blind impulse caused by the discovered infidelity, not whether there was a brief interval. Because the killing was directly traceable to the accused’s outraged passion upon discovering the adultery, Article 247 applied.
Effect of Applying Article 247 on Criminal Liability and Aggravating Circumstances
Because Article 247 is an exempting privilege rather than a crime, the act of “inflicting death under exceptional circumstances” is not punishable in the ordinary sense and therefore cannot be further qualified by aggravating circumstances such as treachery. The Supreme Court held that treachery could not be appreciated to elevate or alter the legal characterization once Article 247’s exceptional circumstances were found to be operative. Consequently, the RTC erred in convicting the accused of murder with treachery.
Liability for Injuries to Third Parties (Arnold and Lina Amparado)
The Solicitor General’s recommendation to treat the wounds to the Amparados as frustrated murders was rejected. The Court reasoned that Article 247 removed the criminal character of the primary act (killing under exceptional circumstances) such that the accused was not committing a punishable felony at the time he fired. Since the rule that an offender is criminally liable for all consequences of his act presupposes that the act itself is a felony, that rule did not automatically extend to impose frustrated murder liability for the bystanders’ injuries in this context.
Nevertheless, the Court found the accused culpable for negligence. Although the accused uttered a warning ("those not concerned, get out") before firing, this did not suffice to absolve him of responsibility for negligently wounding bystanders. The Court applied the provisions governing liability for physical injuries caused by simple imprudence or negligence (Article 365, first part, second paragraph) and found that the Amparados suffered less serious physical injuries through the accused’s imprudence.
Penalty Determination and Indemnity
Given the characterization under Article 247 with respect to Koh and the separate negligence liability for the Amparados, the Supreme Court modified the RTC judgment. The Court sentenced the accused for the injuries of the Amparados to arresto mayor (in its medium and maximum periods), concretely fixing the penalty at four months and 21 days to six months. The period already served in confinement was to be credited toward this penalty. The accused was ordered to indemnify Arnold and Lina Amparado P16,000 for hospitalization expenses and P1,500
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23827)
Case Citation and Panel
- Reported at 237 Phil. 718, Second Division, G.R. No. 74433, decided September 14, 1987.
- Decision authored by Justice Sarmiento.
- Opinion notes concurrence by Justices Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Padilla.
- Trial court decision penned by Regional Trial Court Judge Auxencio C. Dacuycuy (dispositive portion reproduced in the record).
Procedural Posture
- Appeal from the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, which sentenced the accused to death for the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.
- Case elevated to the Supreme Court because of imposition of the death penalty.
- Following approval of the new Constitution abolishing the death penalty and commuting existing death sentences to life imprisonment, the Court required the accused to inform whether he wished to pursue the appeal; the accused filed a statement electing to continue the appeal.
- On arraignment in the trial court, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
Amended Information — Charged Offenses (as pleaded)
- Accused Francisco Abarca charged with Murder with Double Frustrated Murder, alleged to have been committed on or about July 15, 1984, in Tacloban City.
- Allegations included: with deliberate intent to kill, evident premeditation, and with treachery, armed with an unlicensed M-16 armalite rifle, the accused shot Khingsley Paul Koh several times causing instantaneous death.
- The same acts allegedly caused gunshot wounds to Lina Amparado and Arnold Amparado which would have caused their deaths but for timely and able medical assistance (constituting frustrated murder as to each).
Facts as Stated by the Solicitor General
- Context: Khingsley Paul Koh had an illicit relationship with the accused’s wife, Jenny, which began while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 bar examinations.
- On July 15, 1984, the accused returned to Tacloban and arrived at his residence in V & G Subdivision at around 6:00 p.m.
- The accused found his wife Jenny and Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. Upon discovery, the wife pushed Koh, who grabbed his revolver; the accused, then peeping above a built-in cabinet, jumped and ran away.
- The accused went to obtain a firearm: he went to the house of PC soldier C2C Arturo Talbo at around 6:30 p.m., took Talbo’s M-16 rifle, and returned home but did not find his wife or Koh.
- The accused then proceeded to the mahjong session, the hangout of Koh, found Koh playing mahjong, and fired at Koh three times with the rifle.
- Koh was hit and died instantaneously of cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage from multiple gunshot wounds to the head, trunk and abdomen.
- Arnold and Lina Amparado, occupying an adjacent room, were struck by the accused’s shots: Arnold required hospitalization and a kidney operation to remove a bullet; Lina was treated for bullet fragments.
- Arnold was incapacitated for one and one-half months, had a monthly salary of nearly P1,000.00, and spent P15,000.00 for medical expenses; Lina spent P1,000.00 for medical expenses.
Trial Court Judgment and Rationale
- On March 17, 1986, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.
- Dispositive sentence imposed by the trial court:
- Death.
- Indemnify heirs of Khingsley Paul Koh in the sum of P30,000.
- Indemnify complainant spouses Arnold and Lina Amparado in the sum of P20,000.
- No subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; costs to be paid.
- Trial court’s sentencing rationale acknowledged the accused had been deceived, betrayed, disgraced and ruined by his wife’s infidelity, which disturbed his reasoning faculties and deprived him of capacity to reflect; hence the court believed the accused deserved executive clemency and recommended commutation rather than full pardon, directing that a copy of the decision be furnished the President through the Ministry of Justice.
Assignments of Error on Appeal (accused-appellant)
- I. Convicting the accused for the crime as charged instead of entering a judgment of conviction under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
- II. Finding that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Solicitor General’s Recommendation on Appeal
- The Solicitor General recommended application of Article 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances), and that Article 247 be applied resulting in a conviction of death inflicted under exceptional circumstances, completed with double frustrated murder.
- The Solicitor General proposed the imposition of reclusion temporal in its maximum period pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code if Article 247 were applied and the more severe offense (frustrated murder) considered.
Legal Framework — Article 247 (as quoted in the record)
- Article 247 text reproduced in the record: provides that any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro; if other physical injuries inflicted, he shall be exempt from punishment; rules same for parents with respect to daughters under eighteen; excludes persons who promoted or facilitated prostitution or consented to infidelity from benefits.
- The Court noted Article 247 does not define an offense but grants a privilege or benefit amounting practically to an exemption from adequate punishment.
Court’s Discussion on the Nature of Article 247 and Precedent
- The Court cited People v. Araquel, and summarized that Article 247:
- Is not a substantive c