People vs. Marquez

A husband who kills his wife claiming the exempting circumstance of having surprised her in adultery must completely prove the act of adultery itself; a mere belief of unfaithfulness, arising from seeing a man flee and the wife’s subsequent plea for forgiveness, does not satisfy Article 423 of the Penal Code but may be appreciated as the mitigating circumstances of immediate provocation and passion and obfuscation, thereby requiring imposition of the penalty immediately lower than that prescribed for parricide.

Guardiano Marquez had been fishing on the night of the incident. He returned to his home around midnight and found the house closed. After repeated knocking failed to rouse his wife, Oliva Sumampong, he banged on the wall near where she slept. She then awoke and opened the door. Marquez entered, and at that moment a man jumped out of the window. Marquez questioned his wife; she denied any man had been inside. When she persisted in denying it, Marquez killed her.

• The Killing: Guardiano Marquez admitted that he took the life of his wife, Oliva Sumampong. He raised the defense that he had caught her in the act of adultery and killed her as a consequence.

• Defendant’s Statement Before the Justice of the Peace: During the preliminary investigation, Marquez told the justice of the peace (as reflected in Exhibit B and the justice’s testimony) that on the night in question he had been fishing; he returned at midnight to find the house closed and his wife asleep; after knocking repeatedly without response, he went to the part of the house where his wife slept and knocked on the wall; she awoke and opened the door; upon ascending, he saw a man jump out of the window; when he asked his wife why there was a man inside, she said there was none; and because she insisted and would not tell the truth, he killed her.

• Proceedings in the Trial Court: At trial, Marquez gave testimony in support of his defense that he had surprised his wife in the act of adultery. The trial court, however, gave credence to the earlier statements before the justice of the peace and found the parricide proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Facts Established on Appeal: The Supreme Court noted two undisputed facts surrounding the killing: (i) Marquez saw an unknown person jump out of the window of his house upon his return; and (ii) Oliva Sumampong knelt and begged for her husband’s pardon. From the wife’s act of pleading for forgiveness, the Court inferred that she was not wholly unaware of the stranger’s presence and considered herself guilty.

• Justifying Circumstance Under Article 423 of the Penal Code: Marquez maintained that he had caught his wife in the act of adultery and therefore the killing was exempted from criminal liability under Article 423, which permits a husband to kill his wife or her paramour when surprising them in the act. He argued that this exempting circumstance entitled him to acquittal.

• Failure to Completely Prove the Exempting Circumstance: The prosecution contended that Marquez failed to discharge his burden of proving the exempting circumstance. His pre-trial statement to the justice of the peace showed that he saw only a man fleeing after he had entered, and his wife denied the man’s presence, which was inconsistent with actual surprise in the act of adultery. The prosecution therefore opposed the claim of complete justification.

• Exempting Circumstance Under Article 423: Whether Marquez completely proved that he surprised his wife in the act of adultery, thereby exempting him from criminal liability for parricide.

• Presence of Mitigating Circumstances: Whether the proven circumstances—the sight of a man jumping out of the window and the wife’s kneeling plea for pardon—constituted the mitigating circumstances of immediate provocation and passion and obfuscation.

• Proper Penalty: What penalty should be imposed considering the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

• Exempting Circumstance Under Article 423: The exempting circumstance was not sufficiently proven. Once Marquez admitted the killing, the burden shifted to him to completely prove that he had found his wife in the act of adultery. His trial testimony was noticeably weakened by his earlier inconsistent statement before the justice of the peace, where he narrated that he only saw a man jump out after entering and that his wife denied the man’s presence. That account failed to establish actual surprise of the spouse in the sexual act. Consequently, the killing remained an unjustified parricide.

• Presence of Mitigating Circumstances: The facts that Marquez saw an unknown man flee from the window and that his wife knelt to beg his pardon did not justify the killing, but they did give rise to two mitigating circumstances. The sight of the fleeing man warranted the conclusion that Marquez believed his wife had been unfaithful and was overcome by passion and obfuscation (Article 9, paragraph 7, Penal Code). The wife’s conduct in imploring for pardon—indicating her own consciousness of guilt—constituted immediate provocation on her part (Article 9, paragraph 4, Penal Code), sufficient to mitigate the offense.

• Proper Penalty: With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance present, Rule 5 of Article 81 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2298, required the imposition of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law. Parricide was punishable by life imprisonment to death—two indivisible penalties. Pursuant to Rule 2 of Article 75, the penalty immediately lower is cadena temporal. Exercising the discretion granted by law, and taking into account the details of the case and the character of the mitigating circumstances, the Court fixed the penalty at twelve years and one day of cadena temporal.

• Burden of Proof for Exempting Circumstance Under Article 423 — When an accused admits the killing but invokes the exempting circumstance of having surprised his spouse in the act of adultery, the burden lies upon him to completely prove that fact. A mere showing that a man was seen escaping and that the spouse later begged for pardon does not establish the act of adultery; actual surprise during the sexual congress is required. Absent complete proof, the killing remains a punishable parricide.

• Immediate Provocation as Mitigating Circumstance (Art. 9, par. 4, Penal Code) — Any conduct of the offended party that is sufficient to excitedly a person to commit the wrongful act, and which is immediate to its commission, may be considered a mitigating circumstance. Here, the wife’s kneeling and begging for forgiveness, which betrayed her own awareness of guilt, constituted immediate provocation.

• Passion and Obfuscation as Mitigating Circumstance (Art. 9, par. 7, Penal Code) — Passion and obfuscation arise when a lawful or sufficient stimulus produces a state of mind that diminishes the will power and clouds reason. The sight of an unknown man escaping from the marital home, leading the husband to believe in his wife’s infidelity, was held to be a lawful and sufficient cause that produced obfuscation.

• Penalty in Case of Two Mitigating and No Aggravating Circumstances — Under Rule 5 of Article 81 of the Penal Code, when two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attend the commission of the crime, the penalty immediately lower than that prescribed by law must be imposed. For parricide (life imprisonment to death, two indivisible penalties), the next lower penalty is cadena temporal, the precise duration of which is to be fixed within the Court’s discretion.

• “Once the appellant had admitted that it was he who killed his wife, it was incumbent upon him to completely prove his defense, which is, that he found her in the act of adultery.” — Articulates the allocation of the burden of proof when an exempting circumstance under Article 423 is invoked.

• “The testimony he gave during the hearing of this case in the trial court, noticeably weakened by his statements before the justice of the peace, cannot be considered sufficient proof of the justification he alleges…” — Demonstrates the consequence of prior inconsistent statements on the claim of complete justification.

• “The first of these facts… warrants the conclusion that the defendant believed his wife to be unfaithful, and was overcome by passion and obfuscation. The second fact leads us to believe that the wife could not have been wholly unaware of the unknown person’s presence in her house that night, inasmuch as she considered herself guilty and begged her husband’s pardon… such conduct on the part of his wife… constitutes a sufficient provocation, which must be considered as a mitigating circumstance…” — The ratio for appreciating mitigating circumstances despite the failure to prove the full exempting defense.

• Article 423, Penal Code — Defines the exempting circumstance of a husband killing his wife or her paramour when surprising them in the act of adultery. The provision was not applied because the accused failed to completely prove the act of adultery.

• Article 9, paragraphs 4 and 7, Penal Code — Paragraph 4 enumerates the mitigating circumstance of immediate provocation on the part of the offended party. Paragraph 7 enumerates the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. Both were applied in favor of the accused based on the wife’s begging for pardon and the sight of the fleeing stranger.

• Article 81, Rule 5, Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2298 — Provides that when two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance are present, the penalty next lower than that prescribed shall be imposed. This rule dictated the reduction of the penalty from life imprisonment to cadena temporal.

• Article 75, Rule 2, Penal Code — Classifies penalties into divisible and indivisible, and provides that when the prescribed penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the penalty immediately lower is the next in the scale. Applied to determine that cadena temporal was the next lower penalty after life imprisonment to death.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred.