University of the Philippines College of Law

CRIMINAL LAW 2| BLCT D2022

Case Name PEOPLE v. ABARCA

Topic Death or Physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 74433| September 14, 1987

Ponente Sarmiento, J.
• Khingsley Koh and Jenny (wife of accused Francisco Abarca) were having an illicit relationship
while Abarca was reviewing for the Bar exams in Manila. Upon returning home to Tacloban,
he caught Koh and his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. Koh got his revolver but Abarca
was able to run away. Abarca procured a firearm, went to the mahjong session where Koh
usually hangs out and shot Koh three times, causing his death. The Amparados, who were in
the adjacent room, suffered physical injuries. Abarca was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the complex crime of murder and double frustrated murder.
• The Court ruled that Art 247 applies because there is no question that the accused surprised
Case Summary
his wife and her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of
which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Although an hour had
passed from the time of discovery, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of
the pursuit of Koh by Abarca. The provision only requires that the death caused be the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after catching his spouse and Koh.
• However, for the injuries suffered by the Amaparados, the Court found him found him
negligible under Art 365 (less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or
negligence) of the RPC.
Art 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Any legally married
person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or
Doctrine shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.
RELEVANT FACTS
Note: The case was elevated to this Court in view of the death sentence imposed.
· Khingsley Paul Koh and Jenny, the wife of Francisco Abarca (accused) were having an illicit relationship
which started in 1983 in Tacloban when Abarca was reviewing for the Bar exam in Manila.
· On July 15, 1984, Abarca’s plan to fetch his daughter did not push through. Upon returning home, he caught
Koh and his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. The wife saw Abarca and pushed Koh. Koh got his revolver,
but Abarca was able to run away.
· Abarca procured a firearm from a PC soldier and went back home, but the two weren’t there anymore. He
went to the “mahjong session” where Koh usually hangs out and found him there. Abarca shot Koh three
times with his rifle and died instantaneously. Arnold and Lina Amparado, who were in the adjacent room,
were likewise hit by the gunshots, but both survived.
· The trial court found Abarca guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the complex crime of murder with double
frustrated murder as charged in the amended info and was sentenced to death.
· However, due to the accused’s discovery of the illicit relationship between Koh and Abarca’s wife, the court
came to the conclusion that Abarca’s reasoning faculties were disturbed and that this deprived him of the
capacity to reflect upon his acts. The court decided to grant him executive clemency, not of full pardon but
of a substantial if not a radical reduction of commutation of his death sentence.
· Solicitor General: Apply Art 247 of the RPC which defines death inflicted under exceptional circumstances,
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CRIMINAL LAW 2| BLCT D2022
complexed with double frustrated murder.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio

W/N Art 247 of the YES. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the
RPC applies to the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill
case? the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst.

Article 247 prescribes the following elements:

(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.

These elements are present in this case. The trial court, in convicting the accused-
appellant of murder, therefore erred. Although an hour had passed from the time of
discovery, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of
Koh by Abarca. The provision only requires that the death caused be the proximate
result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after catching his spouse and Koh. The
killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse and must not
have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of
the accused’s rage.

People v. Araquel
Art 247 does not define an offense. but merely provides and grants a privilege or
benefit to the accused for the killing of another, amounting practically to an exemption
from an adequate punishment.

Thus, in case of death or serious physical injuries, considering the enormous provocation
and his righteous indignation, the accused — who would otherwise be criminally liable
for the crime of homicide, parricide, murder, or serious physical injury, as the case may
be — is punished only with destierro. This penalty is mere banishment and, as held in a
case, is intended more for the protection of the accused than a punishment. It
amounts to an exempting circumstance.

It shall likewise be noted that inflicting death under exceptional circumstances, not
being a punishable act, cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or other
qualifying circumstances. We cannot accordingly appreciate treachery in this case.

Liability of Abarca for the physical injuries suffered by the Amparados

The accused cannot be held liable for frustrated murder since he was not committing
murder when he discharged his rifle upon Koh. Inflicting death under exceptional
circumstances is not murder. However, the Court still found him negligible under Art
365 (less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence) of the RPC.

Court imposed arresto mayor in its maximum period, arresto being the graver penalty
(than destierro).

RULING
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CRIMINAL LAW 2| BLCT D2022
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is sentenced to four months
and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor. The period within which he has been in confinement shall be credited in
the service of these penalties. He is furthermore ordered to indemnify Arnold and Lina Amparado in the sum of
P16,000.00 as and for hospitalization expenses and the sum of P1,500.00 as and for Arnold Amparado’s loss of
earning capacity. No special pronouncement as to costs.