My own case digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. FRANCISCO ABARCA, accused-appellant, G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987

153 SCRA 735

1. Legal Issue

Shall the accused suffer the penalty of arresto mayor subject by his criminal liability?

2. Legal Facts

That on or about 15th day of July 1984 in the city of Tacloban Leyte Philippines, the accused Francisco
Abarca went to the bus station and travel to Dolores Eastern Samar to fetch his daughter in the
morning. Unfortunately, the trip was delayed at 2 pm because of his failure to catch the trip plus the
engine trouble which causes him to proceed at his father’s house, and then later went home. When he
reaches home the accused caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with Khingsley Koh in the
meantime his wife and Koh notice him, that makes her wife push her paramour and got his revolver.
Abarca peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away to look for a firearm at
the PC soldier’s house to where he got the M-16 rifle. The accused lost his wife and Koh in vicinity at his
house and immediately proceeded to a mahjong house where he caught the victim aimed and shoot
Koh with several bullets on his different parts of his body causing Mr. Khingsley Koh’s instantaneous
death. By that time, Arnold and Lina Amparado had inflicted multiple wounds due to stray bullets
causing Mr. Amparado’s one and one-half month loss of working capacity including his serious
hospitalization and the latter’s wife who had slighter physical injuries from the incident. The RTC hereby
sentenced Abarca to death for Murder with double Frustrated Murder and must indemnify the
Amparado Spouses and Heirs of Kho.

3. Holding

The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision of destierro to arresto mayor from the lower court
sentencing four months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor indemnifying Amparado spouses for
expenses and damages.

4. Reasoning

The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one
committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, the rule presupposes that the act
done amounts to a felony. The accused-appellant is totally free from any responsibility performing an
illegal act when he fired shots at the victim but he cannot be entirely without fault. It appears that
before firing at the deceased, he uttered warning words which is not enough of a precaution to absolve
him for the injuries sustained by the Amparados. The acts of execution which should have produced the
crimes of murders as a consequence, nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent
of his will; nonetheless, the Court finds negligence on his part. He is liable under the first part, second
paragraph, of Article 365 that is less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence.
For the separate injuries suffered by the Amparado spouses impose upon the accused-appellant arresto
mayor in its medium and maximum period to being the graver penalty.