FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 130634-35. March 12, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANOLITO OYANIB y MENDOZA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO,
J.:
Accused Manolito Oyanib y
Mendoza appeals from the joint decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 02,
Iligan City finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and
parricide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty[2] of six (6) months one day (1) to six (6)
years of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years one (1) day to
eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum,[3] and to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity and the costs for the death of
Jesus Esquierdo, and to reclusion perpetua, to pay P50,000.00 and the
costs for the death of his wife, Tita T. Oyanib.[4]
On September 11, 1995,
Iligan City Prosecutor Ulysses V. Lagcao filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Iligan City two (2) separate informations charging accused Manolito Oyanib y
Mendoza with murder and parricide, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6012
“That on or about September 4, 1995, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a deadly weapon to wit: a hunting knife about six inches long and with intent to kill and evident premeditation and by means of treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and wound one Jesus Esquierdo, thereby inflicting upon him the following physical injuries, to wit:
Cardiorespiratory arrest
Hypovolemic shock irreversible
Multiple organ injury
Multiple stab wound chest & abdomen
and as a result thereof the said Jesus Esquierdo died.
“Contrary to and in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code with the aggravating circumstances (sic) of evident premeditation.”[5]
Criminal Case No. 6018
“That on or about September 4, 1995, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, having conceived and (sic) deliberate intent to kill his wife Tita Oyanib, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with evident premeditation, attack, assault, stab and wound his wife, as a result of said attack, the said Tita Oyanib died.
“Contrary to and in violation of Article 246 of the Revised Penal
Code.”[6]
The prosecutor
recommended no bail for the temporary liberty of accused Manolito Oyanib y
Mendoza in both cases.
On September 11, 1995,
accused voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities[7] and was immediately detained at the Iligan
City Jail.[8]
On January 17, 1996, the
trial court arraigned accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza by reading the
informations against him and translating them into the Visayan dialect.[9] He pleaded not guilty to both charges.
As the two (2) cases
arose from the same set of facts, the trial court conducted a joint
trial.
Accused Manolito Oyanib y
Mendoza (hereafter Manolito) and Tita T. Oyanib (hereafter Tita) were married
on February 3, 1979[10] and had two (2) children, Desilor and
Julius. They lived in Purok 1,
Tambacan, Iligan City.
In 1994, due to marital
differences, Manolito and Tita
separated, with Manolito keeping custody of their two (2) children. Tita rented a room at the second floor of
the house of Edgardo Lladas (hereafter Edgardo), not far from the place where
her family lived.
At about 9:30 in the
evening of September 4, 1995, while Edgardo and his family were watching TV at
the sala located at the ground floor of their house at Purok 3-A,
Tambacan, Iligan City, they heard a commotion coming from the second floor
rented by Tita. The commotion and the
noise lasted for quite some time. When
it died down, Edgardo went upstairs to check.[11]
Upstairs, Edgardo saw
Tita wearing a duster, bloodied and sprawled on the floor. He saw Manolito
stabbing Jesus Esquierdo (hereafter Jesus) while sitting on the latter’s
stomach. Jesus was wearing a pair of long black pants. When Edgardo asked Manolito what he was
doing, accused told Edgardo not to interfere.
Thereafter, Edgardo left
the house and called the police.
Meanwhile, the neighbors brought Tita to the hospital. She died on the
way to the hospital.[12]
SPO3 Eduard Tubil, police
investigator, General Investigation Office, Iligan City Police Command,
Precinct I, Poblacion, Iligan City said that at about 9:00 in the evening of
September 4, 1995, while he was on duty, he received an information regarding a
stabbing incident at the Llagas residence at Purok 3-A, Tambacan, Iligan City.[13]
At the crime scene, SPO3
Tubil saw the lifeless body of Jesus lying face up with several stab wounds in
different parts of the body. Jesus was
clad in t-shirt and long pants. From the crime scene, he recovered a knife.
Afterwards, he went to Dr. Uy Hospital to check on Tita; he was informed that
she was dead. Manolito was the suspect in the killing of Jesus and Tita.[14] The incident was recorded in the police
blotter as Entry No. 137138.[15]
On September 5, 1995, Dr.
Leonardo A. Labanon, Medico-Legal Officer, Iligan City examined the bodies of
Jesus and Tita.[16] Jesus sustained multiple stab wounds, and
those inflicted in the right and left chests and stomach were fatal.[17] The cause of death was “cardiorespiratory
arrest, hypovolemic shock irreversible, multiple organ injury and multiple stab
wound chest and abdomen.”[18]
Likewise, Tita sustained
several stab wounds, with the fatal wounds inflicted in the left chest and
right side of the abdomen. The cause of death was “cardiorespiratory arrest,
hypovolemic shock and multiple stab wound.”[19]
As heretofore stated, in
1994, following a series of arguments, Manolito and Tita decided to live
separately. Manolito retained custody
of their two (2) children. Immediately
after the separation, Tita stayed at her friend Merlyn’s house for two (2)
months. Afterwards, she transferred to
the Lladas residence, located at Purok 3, G. Tambacan, Iligan City, and rented
the second floor.[20] The rented space consisted mainly of a sala
with one adjoining room. It was
arranged in a manner that if one enters the main entrance door, one is
immediately led to the sala and from the sala, directly to the
door of the adjoining room.
Despite their separation,
Manolito tried to win Tita back and exerted all efforts towards reconciliation
for the sake of the children. However, Tita was very reluctant to reconcile
with Manolito.[21] In fact, she was very open about her
relationship with other men and would flaunt it in front of Manolito. One time, he chanced upon his wife and her
paramour, Jesus, in a very intimate situation by the hanging bridge at Brgy.
Tambacan, Iligan City.[22] Manolito confronted Tita and Jesus about this. He censured his wife and reminded her that
she was still his wife. They just ignored him; they even threatened to kill
him.[23]
In the evening of
September 4, 1995, after supper, his daughter Desilor handed Manolito a letter
from the Iligan City National High School.
The letter mentioned that his son Julius failed in two (2) subjects and
invited his parents to a meeting at the school. Because he had work from 8:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon the next day, Manolito went to
Tita’s house to ask her to attend the school meeting in his behalf.[24]
Upon reaching Tita’s
rented place, he heard “sounds of romance” (kissing) coming from the
inside. He pried open the door lock
using a hunting knife. He caught his
wife Tita and Jesus having sexual intercourse.
Jesus was on top of Tita and his pants were down to his knees.
Upon seeing him, Jesus
kicked Manolito in the cheek. Manolito
immediately stabbed Jesus. Though Jesus
was 5’9” in height and weighed about 70 kg., the suddenness of the assault
caused him to lose his balance and fall down.
Manolito took advantage of this opportunity and stabbed Jesus in the
stomach. Tita left the room upon seeing
Manolito, only to come back armed with a Tanduay bottle. She hit Manolito in the head, while at the
same time shouting “kill him Jake, kill him Jake.”[25]
In the commotion,
Manolito stabbed Jesus, hitting him in the abdomen. Jesus fell down and
Manolito stabbed him again. Meanwhile,
Tita stabbed Manolito in the arm with the broken Tanduay bottle. This angered
Manolito and he stabbed Tita in the left breast. He stabbed her three (3) more times in different parts of her
body. Tita fell near the lifeless body
of her paramour. It was at this point
that Edgardo, the owner of the house Tita was renting, appeared from the ground
floor and inquired about what had happened.
Manolito told Edgardo not to interfere because he had nothing to do with
it.
Thereafter, Manolito left
the house of Edgardo and went to Kilumco, Camague, Iligan City and stayed at
the wake of his friend’s neighbor. He threw away the knife he used in stabbing
his wife and her paramour. At around 4:00 in the morning of the following day,
he went to Camague Highway to catch a bus for Lentogan, Aurora, Zamboanga. While in Lentogan, he heard over radio DXIC that there was a call for him to
surrender. He heeded the call and gave
himself up to the police authorities in Precinct 2, Nonocan, Iligan City.[26]
When asked why he was
carrying a knife when he went to his wife’s place, Manolito said that he
brought it for self-defense. Prior to the incident, he received threats from
his wife and her paramour, Jesus, that they would kill him so they could live
together.[27]
After trial, on May 26,
1997, the trial court promulgated a
joint decision finding accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes charged. The
dispositive portion reads:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing findings and pronouncements and having carefully observed the demeanor of witnesses, this Court hereby declares accused MANOLITO OYANIB y Mendoza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide (Crim. Case No. II-6012) and Parricide (Crim. Case No. II-6018) and appreciating the two (2) mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation and voluntary surrender without any aggravating circumstances to consider, this Court sentences accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza to suffer an imprisonment as follows:
“1) In Criminal Case No. II-6012:
To an Indeterminate Penalty ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS ONE (1) DAY to SIX (6) YEARS as Minimum to Six (6) YEARS ONE (1) DAY to EIGHT (8) YEARS as Maximum; to indemnify heirs of Jesus Esquierdo the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and to pay the costs.
“2) In Criminal Case No. II-6018:
To RECLUSION PERPETUA pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659; to indemnify heirs of his wife P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and to pay the costs.
“It is likewise ordered that the aforesaid imprisonment is subject to the forty (40) years limitation prescribed in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.
“Accused is likewise entitled to full credit of his preventive imprisonment.
“SO ORDERED.
“Iligan City, Philippines, May 26, 1997.
“MAXIMO B. RATUNIL
“Presiding Judge”[28]
On June 17, 1997, accused
Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza interposed an appeal from the joint decision of the
trial court to the Supreme Court.[29]
Accused admitted the
killings. He argued that he killed them both under the exceptional
circumstances provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. He raised several errors allegedly committed
by the trial court, which boiled down to the basic issue of whether accused is
entitled to the exceptional privilege under Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code.[30] He questioned the trial court’s appreciation
of the facts and the evidence, contending that it ignored and overlooked vital
pieces of physical evidence material to the defense of the accused, like the
photograph of the lifeless body of Jesus.
Accused contends that the photograph graphically showed that Jesus’
pants were wide open, unzipped and unbuttoned, revealing that he was not
wearing any underwear, lending credence to his defense that he caught his wife
and her paramour in the act of sexual intercourse. On the other hand, the Solicitor General submitted that
accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving, by clear and
convincing evidence, that he killed the victims under the exceptional
circumstances contemplated in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the trial court did not err in
denying him the exempting privilege under the Article.[31]
We find the appeal
meritorious.
At the outset, accused
admitted killing his wife and her paramour.
He invoked Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code as an absolutory and an
exempting cause. “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.’”[32]
Having admitted the
killing, it is incumbent upon accused to prove the exempting circumstances to
the satisfaction of the court in order to be relieved of any criminal
liability. Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code prescribes the following essential elements for such a defense: (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; and (3) that he has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to
the infidelity of the other spouse.[33] Accused must prove these elements by clear
and convincing evidence, otherwise his defense would be untenable. “The death
caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused
after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity. Simply put, the killing by the husband of
his wife must concur with her flagrant adultery.”[34]
There is no question that
the first element is present in the case at bar. The crucial fact that accused must convincingly prove to the
court is that he killed his wife and her paramour in the act of sexual intercourse
or immediately thereafter.
After an assiduous
analysis of the evidence presented and the testimonies of the witnesses, we
find accused to have acted within the circumstances contemplated in Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code. Admittedly, accused-appellant
surprised his wife and her lover in the act of sexual intercourse.
To the mind of the court,
what actually happened was that accused chanced upon Jesus at the place of his
wife. He saw his wife and Jesus in the
act of having sexual intercourse. Blinded
by jealousy and outrage, accused stabbed Jesus who fought off and kicked the
accused. He vented his anger on his
wife when she reacted, not in defense of him, but in support of Jesus. Hence, he stabbed his wife as well several
times. Accused Manolito Oyanib y
Mendoza surrendered to the police when a call for him to surrender was made.
The law imposes very
stringent requirements before affording the offended spouse the opportunity to
avail himself of Article 247, Revised
Penal Code. As the Court put it in People v. Wagas:[35]
“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.”
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES the appealed decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 02, Iligan City in Criminal Cases Nos. II-6012
and II-6018. The Court sentences accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza to two (2)
years and four (4) months of destierro.[36] He shall not be permitted to enter Iligan
City, nor within a radius of one hundred (100) kilometers from Iligan City.[37]
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
[1] In Criminal Cases
Nos. II-6012 and II-6018, Judge Maximo B. Ratunil, presiding. Rollo, pp.18-29.
[2] Regretfully, the
trial court judge
did not know how to apply the Indeterminate Sentence
Law. He imposed indefinite minimum and
maximum penalties. He must impose a specific penalty in both the minimum and
maximum periods (Cf. People v.
Herbias, 333 Phil. 422 [1996]).
[3] In Criminal Case No.
II-6012.
[4] In Criminal Case No.
II-6018.
[5] Rollo, p. 11.
[6] Rollo, p. 9.
[7] Criminal Case No.
II-6018, RTC Record, p. 85.
[8] Ibid., p. 14.
[9] Ibid., p. 39.
[10] TSN, April 17, 1996,
p. 13.
[11] TSN, April 10, 1996,
p. 6.
[12] Ibid., pp.
7-10.
[13] TSN, April 17, 1996,
pp. 3-4.
[14] Ibid., pp.
5-9.
[15] TSN, April 18, 1996,
p. 3.
[16] TSN, April 17, 1996,
p. 25.
[17] Ibid., p. 17.
[18] Ibid., p. 20.
[20] TSN, March 6, 1997,
pp. 11-18.
[21] Ibid., p. 16.
[22] Ibid., p. 49.
[23] Rollo, p. 52.
[24] Ibid., pp.
22-23.
[25] Ibid., pp.
24-28.
[26] TSN, March 6, 1997,
pp. 30-35.
[27] Ibid., pp.
32, 45-46.
[28] Rollo, pp.
18-29, at p. 29.
[29] Criminal Case No.
II-6081, RTC Record, p. 112.
[30] Rollo, pp.
56-57.
[31] Ibid., pp.
125-126.
[32] People v.
Talisic, 344 Phil. 51, 59 [1997].
[33] People v.
Wagas, 171 SCRA 69, 73 [1989]; People v. Talisic, supra, Note 32,
at p. 60, citing People v. Gelaver, 223 SCRA 310, 313-314 [1993].
[34] People v.
Wagas, supra, Note 33, at p. 73.
[35] People v.
Wagas, supra, Note 33, at p. 74.
[36] The Indeterminate
Sentence Law is not applicable to a sentence of destierro (Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, First Edition, 2000, p. 207).
[37] Article 87, Revised
Penal Code.