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 thec o m p l e x c r i m e o f m u r d e r w i t h d o u b l e f r u s t r a t e d m u r d e r . T h e c a se waselevated to this Court in view of the death sentence imposed. W ith thea p p r o v a l o f t h e n e w C o n s t i t u t i o n , a b o l i s h i n g t h e p e n a l t y o f d e a t h a n d commuting all existing death sentences to life imprisonment, we required the accused -appellant to inform us whether or not he wished to pursue the c a s e a s a n a p p e a l e d c a s e . I n c o m p l i a n c e t h e r e w i t h , h e f i l e d a s t a t e m e n t informing 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 went h o m e a n d f o u n d h i s w i f e , J e n n y , a n d K h i n g s l e y K o h i n t h e a c t o f s e x u a l intercourse. W hen the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed h e r p a r a m o u r w h o g o t h i s r e v o l v e r . T h e a c c u s e d w h o w a s t h e n p e e p i n g above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ranaway. The accused went 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 andL i n a A m p a r a d o w e r e r u s h e d t o t h e h o s p i t a l a n d w e r e r e n d e r e d t i m e l y medical assistance that prevented their deaths. Legal Issues: 1.W hether or not Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code d e f i n i n g d e a t h inflicted under exceptional circumstances can be applied in the instantcase dissolving the criminal liability of the accused for the murder of the deceased.2 . W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e a c c u s e d i s l i a b l e f o r f r u s t r a t e d m u r d e r f o r t h e injuries suffered by the Amparados. Holding: 1.Yes, Article 247 can be applied in the instant case.2 . N o , t h e a c c u s e d i s n o t l i a b l e f o r f r u s t r a t e d m u r d e r f o r t h e i n j u r i e s suffered by the Amparados.

Reasoning/Policy: Article 247 qualifies death to be under exceptional circumstance whent h e f o l l o w i n g e l e m e n t s a r e p r e s e n t : ( 1 ) t h a t a l e g a l l y m a r r i e d p e r s o n surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with

anotherp e r s o n ; a n d ( 2 ) t h a t h e k i l l s a n y o f t h e m o r b o t h o f t h e m i n t h e a c t o r immediately thereafter. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and herp a r a m o u r in the act of sexual intercourse. That he went out to kill one of them immediately thereafter is however vague. The length of ti me thatpassed between the time the accused discovered his wife h a v i n g s e x u a l intercourse 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 beenmotivated by the same blind impulse and was the direct by-product of the a c c u s e d s r a g e . S a t i s f y i n g b o t h p r o v i s i o n s , A r t i c l e 2 4 7 c a n t h e r e f o r e b e applicable in this case. As a result, accused is not criminally liable for thed e a t h o f t h e d e c e a s e d a s h e w a s u n d e r e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e u p o n employing 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 af e l o n y . R u l i n g t h a t A r t i c l e 2 4 7 c a n b e a p p l i e d i n t h i s c a s e , a c c u s e d w a s therefore not committing a felony when he killed the deceased. Having not committing a felony, it therefore follows that the accused is not liable for theunintended 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 wasn o t c o m m i t t i n g m u r d e r w h e n h e d i s c h a r g e d h i s r i f l e u p o n t h e d e c e a s e d . Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. It cannott h e r e f o r e h o l d t h e a p p ellant liable for frustrated murder for the injuriess u f f e r e d b y t h e A m p a r a d o s . F o r t h e s e p a r a t e i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d b y t h e Amparad o spouses, we therefore impose upon the accused-appellant arrestomayor (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 accusedappellant is sentenced to four months and 21 days to six months of arrestomayor. The period within which he has been in confinement shall be creditedi n the service of these penalties. He is furthermore ordered to indemnifyA r n o l d a n d L i n a A m p a r a d o i n t h e s u m o f P 1 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a s a n d f o r

hospitalization expense and the sum of P1,500.00 as a n d f o r A r n o l d Amparado's loss of earning capacity. No special pronouncement as to costs.