People vs. Oyanib y Mendoza

A legally married person who surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person and kills any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter is entitled to the exempting privilege of destierro under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, provided he has not promoted or facilitated the spouse’s prostitution nor consented to the infidelity. The accused, having caught his wife and her paramour in flagrante delicto and having inflicted the fatal wounds while overwhelmed by outrage, satisfied the stringent requirements of the provision; consequently, the conviction for homicide and parricide was set aside and destierro was imposed.

Manolito Oyanib and Tita T. Oyanib married in 1979 and had two children. In 1994, due to marital differences, they separated; Tita rented a room on the second floor of the Lladas residence in Iligan City. Manolito retained custody of the children and attempted reconciliation, but Tita openly flaunted relationships with other men, including Jesus Esquierdo. She and Jesus threatened to kill Manolito. On the evening of September 4, 1995, Manolito went to Tita’s rented room to ask her to attend a school meeting for their son.

• Marriage and Separation: Manolito Oyanib and Tita T. Oyanib were married on February 3, 1979, and had two children. In 1994, they separated; Manolito kept custody of the children, while Tita rented the second floor of Edgardo Lladas’s house at Purok 3-A, Tambacan, Iligan City. Manolito sought reconciliation, but Tita openly flaunted relationships with other men, including Jesus Esquierdo, and both Tita and Jesus had threatened to kill Manolito.
• Prosecution’s Version: At about 9:30 p.m. on September 4, 1995, Edgardo Lladas and his family heard a commotion from the second floor. When the noise subsided, Edgardo went upstairs and saw Tita, bloodied and wearing a duster, sprawled on the floor, and Manolito stabbing Jesus Esquierdo while sitting on his stomach. Jesus was clad in a t-shirt and long pants. Manolito told Edgardo not to interfere. Edgardo called the police; neighbors brought Tita to the hospital, but she died en route. Police investigator SPO3 Eduard Tubil found Jesus’s lifeless body with multiple stab wounds and recovered a knife from the scene. The incident was entered in the police blotter.
• Defense’s Version: On the evening of September 4, 1995, after supper, Manolito’s daughter handed him a school letter indicating that their son had failed in two subjects and inviting the parents to a meeting. Because he had work the following day, Manolito went to Tita’s rented place to ask her to attend the meeting. He carried a hunting knife for self-defense, having received prior threats from Tita and Jesus. Upon reaching the room, he heard sounds of kissing. He pried open the door lock with the knife and caught Tita and Jesus having sexual intercourse—Jesus was on top of Tita with his pants down to his knees. Jesus kicked Manolito in the cheek; Manolito immediately stabbed Jesus, who fell. Tita left the room but returned with a Tanduay bottle, struck Manolito on the head, and shouted “kill him Jake, kill him Jake.” In the ensuing struggle, Manolito stabbed Jesus in the abdomen and again after he fell. Tita stabbed Manolito in the arm with the broken bottle. Enraged, Manolito stabbed Tita in the left breast and three more times; she fell near Jesus. Edgardo then appeared; Manolito told him not to interfere. Manolito left, threw away the knife, and later voluntarily surrendered after hearing a radio call for him to do so.
• Medical Evidence: Dr. Leonardo A. Labanon examined both bodies. Jesus sustained multiple stab wounds; fatal wounds were in the right and left chest and stomach, causing cardiorespiratory arrest, hypovolemic shock, and multiple organ injury. Tita also sustained multiple stab wounds; fatal wounds were in the left chest and right abdomen, causing cardiorespiratory arrest and hypovolemic shock.
• Surrender: Accused admitted the killings and invoked Article 247. He surrendered to the police at Precinct 2, Nonocan, Iligan City, after hearing the radio announcement.

• Invocation of Article 247: Accused-appellant maintained that he killed his wife and her paramour under the exceptional circumstances of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, as he surprised them in the act of sexual intercourse and acted immediately thereafter.
• Overlooked Evidence: He contended that the trial court ignored a photograph of Jesus’s lifeless body showing his pants wide open, unzipped, and unbuttoned with no underwear, which corroborated the claim that he caught the victims in flagrante delicto. He argued that all elements of Article 247 were proved by clear and convincing evidence.

• Failure to Prove Exceptional Circumstances: The Solicitor General argued that accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the killings occurred under the circumstances contemplated in Article 247, and thus the trial court correctly denied the exempting privilege and convicted him of homicide and parricide.

• Entitlement to the Privilege of Article 247: Whether the accused proved by clear and convincing evidence the essential elements of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby entitling him to the absolutory cause of destierro rather than conviction for homicide and parricide.

• Entitlement to the Privilege of Article 247: The accused successfully established all the requisites of Article 247 by clear and convincing evidence. He was legally married to Tita; he surprised her in the act of sexual intercourse with Jesus, a fact corroborated by the photograph of Jesus’s pants and the credible narrative of the encounter; he killed both victims immediately thereafter, while overwhelmed by the outrage of chancing upon his spouse in flagrante delicto; and there was no evidence that he had promoted or facilitated his wife’s prostitution or consented to her infidelity. The death caused was the proximate result of that outrage. Because the absolutory cause applied, the convictions for homicide and parricide were reversed, and the proper penalty—destierro, not imprisonment—was imposed.

• Article 247 as an Absolutory Cause — Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code provides an absolutory cause: the act committed remains a crime, but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, no penalty is imposed other than destierro. The essential elements are: (1) a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) he kills any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and (3) he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his spouse, nor has he consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. The accused bears the burden of proving these elements by clear and convincing evidence.
• Strict Construction and the “Immediately Thereafter” Requirement — The vindication of a spouse’s honor through the killing of the unfaithful spouse is justified only when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto. The law demands that the killing be inflicted during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter; the death must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused upon chancing upon the act of infidelity. This principle, drawn from People v. Wagas, ensures that the exceptional privilege is narrowly confined.

• “The vindication of a Man's honor is justified because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates; the law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her, even with death. But killing the errant spouse as a purification is so severe as that it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto; and it must be resorted to only with great caution so much so that the law requires that it be inflicted only during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.” — This passage from People v. Wagas, quoted with approval, underscores the stringent requisites of Article 247 and the narrow window during which the privileged killing is allowed.
• “An absolutory cause is present ‘where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.’” — This definition, cited from People v. Talisic, clarifies that Article 247 does not negate the existence of a crime but exempts the accused from the ordinary penalty, substituting destierro.

• People v. Wagas, 171 SCRA 69 (1989) — Followed and heavily relied upon for the elements of Article 247 and the requirement that the killing occur during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter. The decision reiterated that the law is strict and that the killing must be the proximate result of the outraged spouse’s shock upon chancing upon infidelity.
• People v. Talisic, 344 Phil. 51 (1997) — Cited for the definition of an absolutory cause as one where the act is a crime but no penalty is imposed for reasons of public policy.
• People v. Gelaver, 223 SCRA 310 (1993) — Cited as additional authority enumerating the elements of Article 247.

• Article 247, Revised Penal Code — Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. The provision states that 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 shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. The accused fulfilled all its conditions; thus, destierro was imposed instead of the penalties for homicide and parricide.
• Article 87, Revised Penal Code — Defines the penalty of destierro as prohibiting the offender from entering the place or places designated in the sentence, or coming within a specified radius, which the Court fixed at one hundred kilometers from Iligan City.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred.