7/29/2019 people v. abarca

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-abarca 1/3

G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.FRANCISCO ABARCA, accused-appellant.Facts:

 This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Palo,Leyte, sentencing the accused-appellant Francisco Abarca to death for thecomplex crime of murder with double frustrated murder. The case waselevated to this Court in view of the death sentence imposed. With theapproval of the new Constitution, abolishing the penalty of death andcommuting all existing death sentences to life imprisonment, we requiredthe accused-appellant to inform us whether or not he wished to pursue thecase as an appealed case. In compliance therewith, he filed a statementinforming us that he wished to continue with the case by way of an appeal.

On July 15, 1984 at around 6:00 PM, accused Francisco Abarca wenthome and found his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexualintercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushedher paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was then peepingabove the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ranaway. The accusedwent to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. At around 6:30 p.m. he got an M-16 rifle and went back to his house. He was not able to find his wife and Kohthere. He proceeded to the hangout of Kingsley Koh. The accused found Kohplaying mah-jong and fired at him three times with his rifle. Koh was hit anddied instantaneously. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying theadjacent room were also hit by the shots fired by the accused. Arnold and

Lina Amparado were rushed to the hospital and were rendered timelymedical assistance that prevented their deaths.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether or not Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code defining deathinflicted under exceptional circumstances can be applied in the instantcase dissolving the criminal liability of the accused for the murder of the deceased.

2. Whether or not the accused is liable for frustrated murder for theinjuries suffered by the Amparados.

Holding:

1. Yes, Article 247 can be applied in the instant case.2. No, the accused is not liable for frustrated murder for the injuries

suffered by the Amparados.

7/29/2019 people v. abarca

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-abarca 2/3

Reasoning/Policy:

Article 247 qualifies death to be under exceptional circumstance whenthe following elements are present: (1) that a legally married person

surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with anotherperson; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act orimmediately thereafter.

 There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and herparamour in the act of sexual intercourse. That he went out to kill one of them immediately thereafter is however vague. The length of time thatpassed between the time the accused discovered his wife having sexualintercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot tookalmost an hour. It must be understood however that the shooting was thecontinuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused. The killing has been

motivated by the same blind impulse and was the direct by-product of theaccused’s rage. Satisfying both provisions, Article 247 can therefore beapplicable in this case. As a result, accused is not criminally liable for thedeath of the deceased as he was under exceptional circumstance uponemploying the act of killing.

As a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the consequencesof his act. However, that rule presupposes that the act done amounts to afelony. Ruling that Article247 can be applied in this case, accused wastherefore not committing a felony when he killed the deceased. Having notcommitting a felony, it therefore follows that the accused is not liable for the

unintended acts which followed, in this case, for the injuries suffered by theAmparados.

Summary of Ruling by SC:

 The case at bar requires distinctions. Here, the accused-appellant wasnot committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased.Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. It cannottherefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for the injuriessuffered by the Amparados. For the separate injuries suffered by theAmparado spouses, we therefore impose upon the accused-appellant arresto

mayor (in its medium and maximum periods) in its maximum period, arrestoto being the graver penalty (than destierro).

 The decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is sentenced to four months and 21 days to six months of arrestomayor. The period within which he has been in confinement shall be creditedin the service of these penalties. He is furthermore ordered to indemnifyArnold and Lina Amparado in the sum of P16,000.00 as and for

7/29/2019 people v. abarca

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-abarca 3/3

hospitalization expense and the sum of P1,500.00 as and for ArnoldAmparado's loss of earning capacity. No special pronouncement as to costs.