Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
29
Criminal Law 2; RPC Art. 246; Parricide
People vs. Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739 [L-50905] ((Sept. 23, 1982)
Facts: A complaint for murder was filed in the Municipal Court of Sariaya, Quezon, on July
19, 1976, by Station Commander Sisenando P. Alcantara, Jr. against Francisco Jumawan,
Cesario Jumawan, Manuel Jumawan and Presentacion Jumawan for the death of Rodolfo
Magnaye. (Stabbing him with a bolo in the chest)
Rodolfo Magnaye was married to Presentacion Jumawan but they had been living separately
from each other. (During the trial Presentacion admitted her marriage to Rodolfo. simper
praesumitur matrimonio) The Station Commander can perhaps be excused for not accusing
Presentacion of parricide but when the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance (RTC)
of Quezon where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1408, the Provincial Fiscal
perpetuated the mistake by filing an information for murder against all the accused.
Issue: Whether or not Presentacion Jumawan- Magnaye should be convicted of Parricide?
Ruling: No, Wife of victim cannot be convicted of parricide if charged only with murder.
However, relationship must be considered aggravating even if not alleged in the information.
Presentacion should have been accused of parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the
deceased is not alleged in the information, she, like the others, can be convicted of murder only
qualified by abuse of superior strength. Although not alleged in the information, relationship as
an aggravating circumstance should be assigned against the appellants. True, relationship is
inherent in parricide, but Presentacion stands convicted of murder. And as to the others, the
relationships of father-in-law and brother-in-law aggravate the crime.
Presentacion should have been accused of parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the
deceased is not alleged in the information, she, like the others, can be convicted of murder only
qualified by abuse of superior strength.
Although not alleged in the information, relationship as an aggravating circumstance should be
assigned against the appellants. True, relationship is inherent in parricide, but Presentacion
stands convicted of murder. And as to the others, the relationships of father-in-law and brotherin-law aggravate the crime.
The penalty for murder with an aggravating circumstances is death. However, for lack of
necessary votes, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Manolito Oyanib then after interposed an appeal from the joint decision of the trial court to the
Supreme Court. Accused admitted the killings. He argued that he killed them both under the
exceptional circumstances provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. He raised
several errors allegedly committed by the trial court, which boiled down to the basic issue of
whether accused is entitled to the exceptional privilege under Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code. He questioned the trial courts appreciation of the facts and the evidence,
contending that it ignored and overlooked vital pieces of physical evidence material to
the defense of the accused, like the photograph of the lifeless body of Jesus. Accused
contends that the photograph graphically showed that Jesus pants were wide open,
unzipped and unbuttoned, revealing that he was not wearing any underwear, lending
credence to his defense that he caught his wife and her paramour in the act of sexual
intercourse. On the other hand, the Solicitor General submitted that accused-appellant failed to
discharge the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he killed the victims
under the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code. Hence, the trial court did not err in denying him the exempting privilege under the Article
Issue: Wether or not Manolito Oyanibs acts fall under Art. 247 of the RPC?
Ruling: Yes, The death caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming
the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelitythe killing by the husband of
his wife must concur with her flagrant adultery.Having admitted the killing, it is incumbent
upon accused to prove the exempting circumstances to the satisfaction of the court in order to
be relieved of any criminal liability Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the
following essential elements for such a defense: (1) that a legally married person surprises his
spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) that he kills any of
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not promoted or
facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse. Accused must prove these elements by clear and convincing
evidence, otherwise his defense would be untenable. The death caused must be the proximate
result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of
infidelity. Simply put, the killing by the husband of his wife must concur with her flagrant
adultery.
What actually happened was that accused chanced upon Jesus at the place of his wife. He
saw his wife and Jesus in the act of having sexual intercourse. Blinded by jealousy and outrage,
accused stabbed Jesus who fought off and kicked the accused. He vented his anger on his wife
when she reacted, not in defense of him, but in support of Jesus. Hence, he stabbed his wife as
well several times. Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza surrendered to the police when a call
for him to surrender was made.
The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 02,
Iligan City in Criminal Cases Nos. II-6012 and II-6018. Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza
was sentenced to two (2) years and four (4) months of destierro. He shall not be permitted to
enter Iligan City, nor within a radius of one hundred (100) kilometers from Iligan City.
Prior to the killing, the victim was being chased by John Doe. Upon reaching 4th Avenue,
he passed in front of the appellant and Porpirio who, at that time, were both standing near the
corner of 4th Avenue. As the victim passed, the appellant held his left hand and led him towards
the other side of the road. There, Porpirio struck the victim on the head with a dos por
dos causing him to fall to his knees. The appellant thereafter boxed the victim until John Doe
came. They then stabbed him, John Doe delivering the first blow from the back and the
appellant doing it from the front.
There is no evidence indicating that the appellant and his co-accused made some
preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to
make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself. There was nothing in the
record that shows that the three (3) assailants carefully considered the mode or method
of attack to ensure the killing of the victim. While the intent to kill was patent, the manner
of attack did not appear to have been deliberately adopted.
Abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the victim. To take advantage of
superior strength means to use purposely excessive force, or force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person attacked. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is present whenever
there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor so that the superiority
of strength is notoriously advantageous for the latter who took advantage of this
superiority in committing the crime.
The records reveal that the lone and unarmed victim was held by the appellant by hand
and led to the other side of the road; struck on the head by Porpirio; boxed by the appellant; and
then successively stabbed by John Doe and by the appellant. Clearly, the victim was in no
position to defend himself; he was overwhelmed by the combined efforts of all three (3)
assailants who did not only enjoy superiority in number, but also of weapons. This
numerical and physical disparity was manifest in the victims various abrasions on the shoulders
and knees; incised wounds on the forehead, chest, hand and back; and stab wounds on the
neck and chest. That the assailants took advantage of their superior number and combined
strength as against the relatively defenseless victim can be clearly discerned from these
circumstances.
Alfonso, the principal eyewitness, was not even aware of any prior incident or any
possible reason that could have led the appellant and his co-accused to attack the
victim.
The Supreme Court affirmed Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00727 with
modifications.
The relevant facts as found by the trial court are based mainly on the testimony of the
prosecution's sole eyewitness, Joseph Salinas, thirteen-year old son of the victim Roberto
Salinas. Joseph testified that from October 1990 to 31 July 1991 he was living with his father
Roberto and the latter's common law wife, Fe Gutierrez, at No. 36 Nibaliw East, San Fabian,
Pangasinan. On 31 July 1991, after they had gone fishing, Roberto decided to have a bottle of
beer at a nearby sari-sari store. Joseph Proceeded to go home. At about 6:00 in the afternoon,
Fe Gutierrez instructed Joseph to fetch his father. When Joseph was about seven meters away
from the sari-sari store, he saw his father being attacked by four men. Joseph saw Robert and
Demetrio stabbing his father while the other two men restrained his hands. During his direct
examination, Joseph demonstrated how the left hand of his father was squeezed as the two
accused stabbed him. An unidentified person, Arthur Doe, stabbed the middle back part of the
victim. Thereafter, when Roberto was slumped prostrate against the wall, he was shot at the left
temple by a person who has not, as yet, been apprehended.
Issue: Whether or not there was treachery to qualify the crime to murder? YES
Whether or not there was cruelty? NO
Ruling: 1) The fact that Roberto was able to momentarily run away from his assailants does not
negate the element of treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make. 20 In this case, at the time that Robert and Demetrio
stabbed Roberto, who was not armed, his left hand was held and twisted behind him by the two
(2) other assailants, effectively rendering Roberto helpless and unable to either flee or ward off
his attackers. This was clearly intended by them to ensure the success of their assault without
risk to themselves. Additionally, Roberto was shot at the temple when he was already slumped
against the wall, grievously wounded and totally defenseless. From all indications, the mode of
attack adopted by appellants and their co-assailants qualifies the killing to murder.
2.) Dr. Manalo testified that stab wounds number 2, 3 and 4 caused the death of Roberto and
that the other wounds, even the gunshot wound, were in fact unnecessary to produce death of
the victim. The Court is not convinced that cruelty had been sufficiently shown on the basis of
this finding alone. Cruelty cannot be appreciated in the absence of any showing that
appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and
painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The mere fact that
wounds in excess of what was indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the body
of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the
intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the sufferings of the victim.
The appealed decision of the trial court is affirmed except with respect to the finding of the
presence of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance which is deleted.