PEOPLE v ABARCA (The case was elevated to the court in view of the death sentence imposed.

Facts:

 Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of Abarca (accused) were having an illicit relationship which
started in 1983 when Koh was reviewing for the Bar exam.
 On July 15, 1984, Abarca’s plan to fetch his daughter did not push through. Upon returning
home, he caught Koh and his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. The wife saw Abarca and
pushed Koh. Koh got his revolver, but Abarca was able to run away.
 Abarca procured a firearm from C2C Talbo and went back home, but the two weren’t there
anymore. He went to the “mahjong session” where Koh usually hangs out and found him there.
Abarca shot Koh three times with his rifle and died instantaneously. Arnold and Lina Amparado
were likewise hit by the gunshots, but both survived.
 The trial court found Abarca guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the complex crime of murder
with double frustrated murder as charged in the amended info and was sentenced to death.
 However, due to the accused’s discovery of the illicit relationship between Koh and Abarca’s
wife, the court came to the conclusion that Abarca’s reasoning faculties were disturbed and that
this deprived him of the capacity to reflect upon his acts. The court decided to grant him
executive clemency, not of full pardon but of a substantial if not a radical reduction of
commutation of his death sentence.
 Solicitor General: Apply Art 247 of the RPC which defines death inflicted under exceptional
circumstances, complexed with double frustrated murder.

Issue: W/N Art 247 of the RPC applies to the case -- YES

Held:

 There is no question that the accused was surprised to find his wife and her paramour in bed.
 Art 247 prescribes the following elements:
o That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person
o That he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter
 Trial court erred in convicting accused of murder. Although an hour had passed from the time of
discovery, the shooting is understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of Koh by Abarca.
The provision only requires that the death cased be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after catching his spouse and Koh. The killing should have been
actually motivated by the same blind impulse and must not have been influenced by external
factors.
 Art 247 does not define and provide for a specific crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the
accused for the killing of another, amounting practically to an exemption from an adequate
punishment. It amounts to an exempting circumstance. In effect, an act which is not punishable
cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying circumstances.
  As for the Amadora’s, the accused cannot be held liable for frustrated murder since he was not
committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon Koh. However, the Court still found him
negligible under Art 365 (less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence)
of the RPC.
 Penalty: Arresto mayor in its maximum period, arresto being the graver penalty (than destierro).

Notes:

Art 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. 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.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.