People vs. Gonzales

To avail of the exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, the offender must have surprised his spouse in the very act of sexual intercourse; proof that the spouse and paramour were discovered in circumstances suggesting that intercourse had just been completed is insufficient to trigger the privilege.

On June 2, 1938, Marciano Gonzales killed his wife, Sixta Quilason, in the municipality of Sariaya, Tayabas. He was charged with parricide and, at trial, invoked Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes with destierro a legally married person who kills or injures a spouse and the paramour upon surprising them “in the act of committing sexual intercourse.” The central factual dispute was whether Gonzales had caught the two in the act itself or only under post-coital circumstances that did not positively prove the intercourse.

• The Accused’s Testimony: Marciano Gonzales testified that at midday on June 2, 1938, upon returning from the woods, he surprised his wife Sixta Quilason and Isabelo Evangelio in their conjugal home “uno encima de la otra.” He told her that Evangelio was the very person who habitually begged rice and food from them, and counseled her not to repeat the faithlessness. She promised not to do it again. He left to check his carabaos. At about five o’clock that afternoon, he returned and, not finding his wife at home, searched for her. He found her with Isabelo near the toilet of the house in a spot covered with underbrush: the woman was rising and pulling down her skirt, while the man stood nearby buttoning his drawers. Evangelio fled. After failing to overtake him, Gonzales returned to his wife and, “completely obfuscated,” attacked her with a knife without intending to kill her. He later took the body into the house.

• Improbability Findings: The Court found the accused’s account improbable on several grounds: (a) if he had truly surprised the two at midday, it was unlikely he would have merely counseled his wife instead of taking harsher, more natural measures; (b) a thirty-year-old woman and a twenty-five-year-old man, both of sound judgment, would not have dared to engage in sexual intercourse near the toilet of the offended party’s house—a place frequented by persons—merely because the area was covered with weeds, which are not ordinarily tall enough to conceal two people engaged in such an act.

• Prior Inconsistent Statements (Concurring Opinion of Avanceña, C.J.): Immediately after the killing, the accused told his sister-in-law and the barrio lieutenant that his wife had committed suicide. Later, before the justice of the peace court, he pointed to Isabelo Evangelio as the killer.

• Applicability of Article 247, Revised Penal Code: Whether the accused, who found his wife rising from the ground while the alleged paramour buttoned his drawers, surprised his spouse “in the act of committing sexual intercourse” within the contemplation of Article 247, thereby entitling him to the penalty of destierro instead of parricide.

• Applicability of Article 247, Revised Penal Code: The exceptional privilege was not available. Article 247 expressly conditions its benefit on the spouse being surprised “in the act of committing sexual intercourse.” The accused did not surprise his wife in the very act; the fact that the woman was rising and the man was buttoning his drawers did not necessarily prove that carnal intercourse had taken place—at most it suggested that the act had concluded, which falls short of the statutory requirement. Moreover, the accused’s testimony was inherently improbable: the mild reaction to the alleged noon-time adultery, the implausibility of the act’s commission in an open space near a toilet, and the inability of weeds to conceal two adults in such a position. The defense thus failed to establish the factual predicate for Article 247. In the absence of the privileged mitigating circumstance, the crime remained parricide. However, the Court credited the ordinary mitigating circumstances of lack of intention to cause so grave a wrong and lack of instruction, and accordingly reduced the penalty to twelve years and one day to twenty years of reclusion temporal.

• Strict Construction of “In the Act” under Article 247 — The phrase “in the act of committing sexual intercourse” demands that the offended spouse actually witness the carnal copulation; evidence that the act had just been consummated, absent a direct view of the intercourse itself, is insufficient. Circumstances from which the prior commission of the act may merely be inferred—such as the woman rising and the man buttoning his drawers—do not satisfy the statutory condition.

• Res Inter Alios Acta in Proving Subsequent Adulterous Conduct (Moran, J., concurring) — The rule that evidence of a prior act is inadmissible to prove the commission of a similar act at another time applies to the defense under Article 247. Proof that the deceased and the paramour committed adultery at noon does not supply proof that they committed adultery in the afternoon of the same day; at most it renders the later acts suspicious, but suspicion does not justify the killing.

• “…the privilege there granted is conditioned on the requirement that the spouse surprise the husband or the wife in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; the accused did not surprise his wife in the very act or carnal intercourse, but after the act, if any such there was, because from the fact that she was rising up and the man was buttoning his drawers, it does not necessarily follow that a man and a woman had committed the carnal act.”

• “…the fact that he was buttoning his drawers only means that they were unbuttoned, but anyone may be in such circumstance without having carnal intercourse with any woman.” (Moran, J., concurring)

• “It is not conceivable that the accused had only mildly counseled his wife not to repeat committing adultery with Isabelo, instead of taking harsher measures as is natural in such circumstances, if it were true that he had surprised the two offenders in the act of adultery on returning to his house at midday on the date in question.”

• People vs. Marquez, 53 Phil. 260 — Followed; cited as authority that the benefit of the exceptional circumstance requires that the offender surprise the spouse in the very act of adultery, not merely after its commission.

• United States vs. Alano, 32 Phil. 381 — Discussed extensively in the concurring opinion of Justice Moran and the dissenting opinion of Justice Laurel as a case where the privilege was applied even though the accused did not see copulation itself but saw the man “lying upon a woman in a position to hold sexual intercourse”; the majority, however, did not cite Alano and effectively distinguished it by insisting on a stricter interpretation of “in the act.”

• Article 247, Revised Penal Code (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 either of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.” The provision was strictly construed; the accused was held not to have surprised his spouse “in the act,” because the physical positions he described did not conclusively establish that intercourse was taking place or had just taken place.

• Article 13, Revised Penal Code (Mitigating Circumstances) — The Court appreciated in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstances of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (paragraph 3) and lack of instruction (paragraph 6, as it then stood), which justified the reduction of the penalty from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal in its medium period.

• Villa-Real, J.
• Diaz, J.
• Avanceña, C.J. — Concurred in the result, emphasizing that the testimony of the accused was the only defense evidence and that the accused’s immediate post-killing statements—first claiming suicide, then accusing Isabelo Evangelio—further discredited his defense.
• Moran, J. — Concurred, elaborating that the law justifies the husband only when he surprises the wife in circumstances that unmistakably evidence the carnal act. The facts in this case—the wife rising in an open field while the man buttoned his drawers—did not conclusively prove adultery; a prior act of adultery could not supply the deficiency under the res inter alios acta rule.

• Justice Imperial — Maintained that the proven facts brought the case within Article 247. The legal provision should not be interpreted so literally; the benefit extends to situations where the plain and positive facts lead to no other reasonable conclusion than that adultery had just been committed. The place, the condition of the clothes, and the solitary underbrush left no other conviction. The appellant should have been sentenced only to destierro.

• Justice Laurel — Dissented at length, arguing that the requirement of “in the act” should not be given a literally narrow interpretation that frustrates the legislative purpose. The law accommodates the human burst of passion upon discovery of infidelity, and it is sufficient that the circumstances unequivocally indicate that the adulterous act was committed—in preludiis vel paulo post. The facts—the woman pulling down her skirt, the man buttoning his drawers, the earlier noon-time adultery, and the lack of other motive—rationally admitted of no other conclusion. The majority’s strict construction was inconsistent with the doctrine in United States vs. Alano. He further noted that executive clemency might be warranted.