People v.

ROY SAN GASPAR

GR. No. 180496, 2 April 2014

Prosecution:
- The appellant went to Norala, South Cotabato with his father to attend a funeral of a
relative, without informing his wife (Imelda). – they were not in speaking term for a
week already.

- At around 11:30 PM of the same day, while Imelda and her 2 children (Joramel and
Cherme [which was her children from her previous relationship]) were sleeping already,
appellant returned home and pounded on their front door (thudding roused the whole
household).

- The appellant was mad because no one attended to open the door for him and further got
mad when he saw his wife sleeping side-by-side with her grown-up children. He kicked
Imelda’s leg (a heated altercation ensued)
Roy: “What kind of wife are you”
Imelda: “What kind of husband is a person who just leave his family behind
without asking permission or informing his wife of his whereabouts?”
- Imelda told appellant that sleeping with Joramel and Cherme is without malice as they
are her children.
- As appellant was enraged, appellant went upstairs and returned with a 12-gauge shotgun
loaded with gasoline and used it to shoot Imelda on the front left side of her head.
- Imelda was brought to the hospital but died.

Version of the Defense

- The appellant went to a funeral and arrived at around 7 PM just to change clothes and
again returned to Norala after asking permission from Imelda.

- It was already around 11:00 p.m. when appellant came home. But as he pushed the door
to enter their room, he heard a gunshot from a .12-gauge shotgun.

- Since it was dark, appellant rushed downstairs to fetch a lamp to see what had just
happened. Then, he saw Imelda lying on the floor drenched in her own blood. Joramel
and Cherme were beside her crying.

- Appellant looked for a tricycle.

- The appellant postulates (claims) that when he pushed the door open, it hit the shotgun
causing it to accidentally discharge and hit Imelda.
RTC: convicted the appellant for the crime of PARRICIDE under Article 246 of the RPC
- A person is killed
- Killed by the accused
- Is a father, mother, child (legally or illegally)
CA: affirmed RTC decision – and told that it was incumbent upon appellant to prove the
existence of the exempting circumstances of accident.
- The trajectory of the gunshot and gun powder burns around Imelda’s wound imply that
the shooting was intentional.

Issue:
W/N: Roy San was entitled to the exempting circumstance of accident?

Ruling:

NO, all the elements of the crime of Parricide under Article 246 of the RPC are present in
this case. Appellant’s defense of accident deserves no credence.
(credence=acceptance/credibility)

While appellant describes the prosecution’s version of events as "unnatural, implausible, and
contrary to human nature and experience,"  the Court finds that it is his story of accidental discharge
44

of the shotgun that is incredulous and unbelievable. Contrary to what appellant wants this Court to
believe, a .12 gauge shotgun will not go off unless it is loaded, cocked, and its trigger squeezed. To
this Court, appellant’s allegation is nothing but a self-serving statement without an ounce of proof or
a lick of credibility. Moreover, the same does not jibe with the result of the autopsy conducted on
Imelda’s body.