People vs.

Abarca
Criminal Law Crimes Against Persons Article 247 Death Inflicted Under Exceptional
Circumstances

One day in 1984, Francisco Abarca, through a peephole, caught his wife having sexual
intercourse with one Khingsley Paul Koh inside the Abarca residence. The two also caught
Abarca looking at them and so Koh grabbed his pistol and thereafter Abarca fled. One hour later,
Abarca, armed with an armalite, went to the gambling place where Koh usually stays and then
and there shot Koh multiple times. Koh died instantaneously. However, two more persons were
shot in the adjacent room. These two other persons survived due to timely medical intervention.

Eventually after trial, Abarca was convicted of the complex crime of murder with frustrated
double murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of conviction is correct.

HELD: No. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides:
Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his
spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any
of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this
case.
Even though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca caught his wife with Koh and the
time he killed Koh, the killing was still the direct by-product of Abarcas rage. Therefore, Abarca
is not liable for the death of Koh. However, Abarca is still liable for the injuries he caused to the
two other persons he shot in the adjacent room but his liability shall not be for frustrated murder.
In the first place, Abarca has no intent to kill the other two persons injured. He was not also
committing a crime when he was firing his gun at Koh it being under Art. 247. Abarca was
however negligent because he did not exercise all precaution to make sure no one else will be
hurt. As such, he shall be liable for less serious physical injuries through simple negligence for
the injuries suffered by the two other persons who were in the adjacent room when the incident
happened.

Supreme Court noted that Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between
the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and
the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of
the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the
accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in
the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only
requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused
after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been
actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external
factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.