People v. Embalido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Feliciano Embalido, was charged with murder. He admitted killing Felix Cabiguin but claimed he surprised his wife and the deceased engaged in criminal conversation. Procedural History: The lower court found the appellant guilty of murder, appreciating the mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and voluntary surrender. He was sentenced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of cadena temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500, and to pay the costs. The Petition: The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that he should have been sentenced in accordance with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for the penalty of destierro for a legally married person who kills their spouse or the other party upon surprising them in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant should be sentenced under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the evidence sufficiently establishes that the appellant surprised his wife and the deceased in the act of committing sexual intercourse. Whether the killing constitutes murder or homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower court. The appellant was found guilty of homicide, not murder, and sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties provided by law. The sentence was to be served after any sentence imposed in a related case (G.R. No. 37379). The indemnity to the heirs of the deceased and costs were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the appellant should be sentenced under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code: The Supreme Court held that the case does not come within the purview of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence of record did not justify the conclusion that the appellant surprised his wife and the deceased while they were engaged in criminal conversation. This specific defense requires proof of the act of surprising the spouse in flagrante delicto during sexual intercourse. On whether the evidence sufficiently establishes that the appellant surprised his wife and the deceased in the act of committing sexual intercourse: The Court found that the evidence did not support the appellant's claim of surprise. The mere fact that the deceased had wounds in the back was not sufficient to establish that the appellant had surprised him in such a manner as to preclude any possibility of defense or to bring the killing within the specific provisions of Article 247. On whether the killing constitutes murder or homicide: The Supreme Court opined that the lower court erred in finding the appellant guilty of murder. The evidence did not necessarily show that the appellant attacked the deceased from behind, thus depriving him of any chance to defend himself, which is a characteristic of murder. Therefore, the offense was classified as homicide. In cases of homicide, the prosecution is required to prove two facts: (1) that death occurred, and (2) that the accused caused the death. Once these facts are established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction is warranted, and matters of defense, mitigation, excuse, or justification must be proven by a preponderance of evidence. The Court found that the prosecution had established the elements of homicide, but the defense's claim under Article 247 was not substantiated.
Main Doctrine
The mere fact that the deceased had wounds in the back does not necessarily show that the appellant attacked him from behind, giving the deceased no chance to defend himself, so as to bring the offense within the definition of the crime of murder. The case is one of homicide. The defense of having surprised the spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another, as provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, requires proof that the accused did indeed surprise his spouse in such an act.