People v. Bastasa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused spouses, Dionisio Bastasa and Virginia Bastasa, were charged with murder for allegedly conspiring, confederating, and working together, armed with a firearm, with treachery and evident premeditation, to shoot Atty. Solomon Sudiacal, causing his death. Procedural History: The trial court found Dionisio Bastasa guilty of murder as principal, with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Virginia Bastasa was found guilty as an accessory after the fact, but exempt from criminal liability as a spouse. Dionisio was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with indemnification for damages. Virginia was acquitted. The Petition: Dionisio Bastasa appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not applying Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Atty. Solomon Sudiacal by Dionisio Bastasa falls under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the penalty of destierro is applicable in this case. Whether the period of preventive imprisonment should be credited to the penalty of destierro.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court. It held Dionisio Bastasa guilty of killing the victim under the exceptional circumstances defined in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of destierro. Considering his preventive imprisonment, he was ordered released immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court found the version of the appellant, Dionisio Bastasa, to be more credible and consistent with the physical facts of the case. The Solicitor General's observation that the antecedent facts, particularly the illicit relations between the deceased and appellant's wife, provided a basis for the conclusion that the deceased's purpose was to engage in sexual intercourse with the appellant's wife, was given weight. The Court agreed that the appellant killed the deceased while in the act of committing sexual intercourse with the appellant's wife, thus falling under the exceptional circumstances of Article 247. On the penalty of destierro: Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly states that any legally married person who surprises their spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another and kills any of them or both, or inflicts serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. The Court found that the facts of the case squarely met these conditions, warranting the imposition of destierro. On the crediting of preventive imprisonment: The Court held that the benefits of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, concerning the crediting of preventive imprisonment, can be extended to the appellant even though the penalty imposed is destierro. Although destierro does not constitute imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the appellant should be credited with the time he has undergone preventive imprisonment, which in this case, exceeded the maximum duration of destierro.
Main Doctrine
A legally married person who surprises their spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another and kills any of them or both, or inflicts serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Preventive imprisonment is credited to the sentence of destierro.