People v. Cabalhin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 22, 1987, at approximately 3:30 PM, in Sitio Burol, Barangay San Juan, Taytay, Rizal, the accused Aurelio Cabalhin y Daclitan stabbed his wife, Marianita Atison, and Flaviana and Rolito Saldivia (mother and son). Marianita Atison and Rolito Saldivia died as a result of the stabbing, while Flaviana Saldivia sustained stab wounds. Procedural History: Three separate informations were filed against the accused: for frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 3081), murder (Criminal Case No. 3082), and parricide (Criminal Case No. 3094). The Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, found the accused guilty of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. 3081, homicide in Criminal Case No. 3082, and parricide in Criminal Case No. 3094. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for each offense, including reclusion perpetua for parricide. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, contending that his actions were justified under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) and that the crime against Flaviana Saldivia was only serious physical injuries, not frustrated homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is entitled to the exceptional circumstances provided under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the accused is guilty of frustrated homicide with respect to Flaviana Saldivia.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused guilty of parricide, homicide, and frustrated homicide. The Court ruled that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code was not applicable as the accused failed to prove that he caught his wife and Rolito Saldivia in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter. The Court also upheld the finding of frustrated homicide against Flaviana Saldivia, citing the number and location of the stab wounds as indicative of intent to kill. The mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation and voluntary surrender were appreciated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which allows for reduced penalties when a spouse kills their partner caught in the act of sexual intercourse, requires strict proof that the act was committed in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter. The accused's claim of catching his wife and Rolito Saldivia in the act was contradicted by the testimony of Barangay Tanod Romulo del Monte, who observed that the victims were clothed when he saw them shortly after the incident. The trial court's factual finding, which gave weight to the testimony of the unbiased witness, was respected on appeal. Therefore, the accused could not invoke Article 247 to be exempt from criminal liability for the parricide of his wife and the homicide of Rolito Saldivia. The Court reiterated the strictness of the law in People vs. Wagas, emphasizing that such justification can only be invoked when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto. On the crime committed against Flaviana Saldivia: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the accused was guilty of frustrated homicide with respect to Flaviana Saldivia. The essential element of intent to kill must be established for a conviction of homicide. The trial court considered the number and location of the stab wounds inflicted upon Flaviana (two stab wounds on the lower right breast) and the weapon used (a 13-inch dagger) as sufficient evidence of the appellant's intent to kill. This Court found no reversible error in this appreciation, upholding the trial court's conclusion that the appellant had the intent to kill when he attacked Flaviana. The mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation, due to the perceived infidelity of his wife, and voluntary surrender, by going to the police station that same night, were correctly appreciated by the trial court, leading to the imposition of the penalty for frustrated homicide within the appropriate range.
Main Doctrine
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for reduced penalties for killing a spouse caught in the act of sexual intercourse, requires strict adherence to the timing of the act (in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter). Failure to prove this strict adherence precludes the application of the exceptional circumstance. Furthermore, the presence of passion or obfuscation and voluntary surrender are mitigating circumstances that can be appreciated in favor of the accused.