Você está na página 1de 6








SALUFRANIA, defendant-appellant. FACTS: On 7 May 1976, Filomeno Salufrania y Aleman was charged before the CFI of Camarines Norte,with the complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion. willfully, there It was alleged that on the 3rd day of December, and feloniously her, causing attack, upon assault her and use which 1974, the accused Filomeno Salufrania y Aleman did then and there, unlawfully, and personal violence on his wife, MARCIANA ABUYO-SALUFRANIA by then and boxing stranging injuries resulted in her instantaneous death; and by the same criminal act committed on the person of the wife of the accused, who was at the time 8 months pregnant, the accused caused the death of the unborn child,committing both crimes of PARRICIDE and INTENTIONAL ABORTION as defined and punished under Art. 246 and Art. 256, paragraph I, of the Revised Penal Code. At the trial court, Dr. Juan L. Dyquiangco Jr., Pedro Salufrania testified that,he was called upon by the Municipal Judge of Talisay to examine the corpse of Marciana Abuyo-Salufrania that was exhumed from its grave in which the cause of death was cardiac arrest. Dr. Dyquiangco testified that after conducting the post mortem

examination, he issued a certification thereof (Exhibit "A"); that he issued a death certificate (Exhibit "B") for the deceased Marciano Abuyo-Salufrania, bearing the date of 5 December 1974, made on the basis of the information relayed by a certain Leonila Loma to his nurse before the burial, without mentioning the cause of death; that the cause of death, as cardiac arrest, was indicated on said death certificate only after the post mortem examination on 11 December 1974. The lower court allowed the son of the accused, Pedro Salufrania, The lower court stated that, by reason of interest and relationship, before Pedro Salufrania was allowed to testify against his father-accused Filomeno Salufrania, after careful examination by the prosecuting officer and the defense counsel under the careful supervision of the court a quo, to determine whether, at his age of 13

years old, he was already capable of receiving correct impressions of facts and of relating them truly and, also, whether he was compelled and/or threatened by anybody to testify against his father-accused.He stated that his father Filomeno Salufrania and his mother Marciana Abuyo quarrelled at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of 3 December 1974, he saw his father box his pregnant mother on the stomach and, once fallen on the floor, his father strangled her to death; that he saw blood ooze from the eyes and nose of his mother and that she died right on the spot where she fell. His brother,Eduardo Abuyo and had refused and still refused to live with his father-accused, because the latter has threatened to kill him and his other brothers and sister should he reveal the true cause of his mother's death.The brother in law and sister of the deceased victim,Narciso Abuyo also declared that after the burial of Marciana Abuyo, the three (3) children of his deceased sisterrefused to go home with their father Filomeno Salufrania; that when asked why, his nephew Alex Salufraa told him that the real cause of death of their mother was not stomach ailment and headache, rather, she was boxed on the stomach and strangled to death by their father; that immediately after learning of the true cause of death of his sister, he brought the matter to the attention of the police authorities . The CFI found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the complex

crime of Parricide with Intentional Abortion, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Marciano Abuyo in the sum of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs. "For unselfish, valuable and exemplary service rendered by counsel de oficio, Atty. Marciano C. Dating, Jr., a compensation of P500.00 is hereby recommended for him subject to the availability of fund. before the Supreme Court. The defense had for witnesses and the Geronimo accused Villan, Juanito Bragais, Since the accused was sentenced to death, this becomes an automatic review






Villan testified that he was a neighbor of Filomeno Sulfrania whio

tried to help him administer a native treatment around 6am in the morning of December 4, 1974, but she died around 7am. Witness Juanita Bragais testified that he was fetched by Felipe Salufrania, another son of Filomeno Salufrania Marciana Abuyo was already dead so he just helped Filomeno Salufrania in transferring the body of his wife to the house of the latter's brother-inlaw.Angeles Liling Balce, who claimed to be a former resident she arrived in the house of Filomeno Salufrania at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning Marciana still in a coma lying on the lap of her husband who informed her that Marciana was suffering from an old stomach ailment. The accused admitted that he was that lawful husband of the deceased Marciana Abuyo; that he sent r Juanito Bragais but the latter was not able to cure his wife, that there was no quarrel between him and his wife that preceded the latter's death, and that during the lifetime of the deceased, they loved each other; that after her burial, his son Pedro Salufrania was taken by his brother-in-law Narciso Abuyo and since then, he was not able to talk to his son until during the trial; and that at the time of death of his wife, aside from the members of his family, Geronimo Villan Francisco Repuya and Liling Angeles Balce were also present.Appellant alleges that the trial court failed to determine the competence of Pedro Salufrania before he was allowed to testify. He also questions the competence of Dr. Dyquiangco as an expert witness, and alleges that the findings of Dr. Dyquiangco and the testimony of Pedro Salufrania do not tally. But this contention is without merit. The Court notes, first of all, that appellant did not even bother to discuss his defense in order to refute the massive evidence against him. This is tantamount to an admission that he could not adequately support his version of Marciana Abuyo's death.Lastly, appellant alleges that, assuming he indeed killed his wife, there is no evidence to show that he had the intention to cause an abortion. In this contention, appellant is correct. He should not be held guilty of the complex crime of Parricide with Intentional Abortion but of the complex crime of Parricide with Unintentional Abortion. The elements of Unintentional Abortion are as follows:

1. That there is a pregnant woman. 2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion. 3. That the violence is intentionally exerted. 4. That as a result of the violence the foetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in its ruling of complex crime with parricide and intentional abortion? HELD: detect According to the Supreme Court, falsehoods not in the the testimony findings of of witnesses. the trial This Court on will the

Trial judges are in the best position to ascertain the truth and normally disturb court

credibility of witnesses, in view of its advantage in observing first hand their demeanor in giving their testimony. the present case. The Solicitor General's brief makes it appear that appellant intended to cause an abortion because he boxed his pregnant wife on the stomach which caused her Mere to fall on and the then strangled taken her. We find with that the appellant's intent to cause an abortion has not been sufficiently established. boxing stomach, together immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause an abortion. In fact, appellant must have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily to cause an abortion. The evidence on record, therefore, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that accused Filomeno Salufrania committed and should be held liable for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. The abortion, in this case, was caused by the same violence that caused the death of Marciana Abuyo, such violence being voluntarily exerted by the herein accused upon his victim. It has also been clearly established (a) that Marciana Abuyo was seven (7) to eight (8) months pregnant when she was killed; (b) that violence was voluntarily exerted upon her by her husband accused; and (c) that, as a result of said that violence, the Marciana should Abuyo be died together with with the foetus in her womb. In this afternoon, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code states accused punished the penalty Such rule applies in

corresponding to the more serious came of parricide, to be imposed in its maximum period which is death. However, by reason of the 1987 Constitution which has abolished the death penalty, appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In the the present of case, the Supreme perpetua. Court The modified, indemnity of the judgment 00

appealed from was AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer penalty reclusion P12,000. awarded to the heirs of the deceased Marciana Abuyo is increased to P30,000.00 in line with the recent decisions of the Court. With costs. PP vs OritaFacts: Coming from a party, Cristina Abayan arrived at her boarding in the early morning of March 20, 1983. When she was about to enter her boarding house, Cielito Orita suddenly held her and poked a balising to her neck. She was dragged to her room where Orita ordered her to undress. Out of fear she followed his order., while the accused starts undressing as well.Thereafter, Orita mounted on her while she laid on the floor. The accused ordered her to hold hispenis and insert it in her vagina. At said position, Oriat cannot fully penetrate her. The accusedthen lay down on his back and commanded her to mount on him. Again, in this position, only asmall portion of his penis was inserted in her vagina.At this stage, Abaya was able to dash out to next room./ Orita ran after her but she was able to jump out the window and fled to the municipal building. After learning about the incident thepolicemen who attended her rushed to the boarding house, however, they failed to apprehend theaccused.Abayan was brought to a hospital where she was examined. Upon examination, it was found thatthe hymen is still intact and no laceration was noted.Issue: Whether or not Orita was properly convicted of the crime of frustrated rape given the factthat there is no complete penetration?Held: No, the conviction on the crime of frustrated rape is erroneous. Article 355 of the RevisedPenal Code provides that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by usingforce or intimidation, when the woman is deprived of reason or when the woman is under twelveyears of age.

Article 6, on the other hand, provides that a felony is consummated when all theelements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated whenthe offender performs all the acts necessary for its execution which would produce the felony asa consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of thewill of the perpetrator.Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim,all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be doneby the offender because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. The courthas decide on numerous cases presented before it that perfect penetration is not essential for theconsummation of the crime of rape. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ issufficient. Thus, Oriat should have been convicted of consummated rape.