Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- C.A.-G.R. CR No. 12345

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Accused-Appellant.

x-------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, plaintiff-appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES unto
this Honorable Court, as represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General in answer to the allegations raised by the accused-appellant in
his Memorandum, respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
Passion, a license to kill? The accused-appellant would have this
Honorable Court believe that the facts of this case constitute a crime of
passion. However, this is just a plain, simple, dastardly act of Murder.

Through this appeal, accused-appellant invokes the privilege under

Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to the judgment
rendered by Judge John A. Hukom of the Regional Trial Court, 12th
Judicial Regional Branch 3, Iligan City finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Parricide.

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS
Accused-appellant Juan dela Cruz was charged before the Regional
Trial Court, 12th Judicial Regional Branch 3, Ilgan City of parricide which
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 12345. The accusatory portion reads:

1
 That on or about August 1, 1980 at about 8:30 pm, in
the City of Iligan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, motivated by extreme jealously, and
while armed with a knife, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, unexpectedly stabbed Maria
Clara dela Cruz, his lawfully wedded wife, which caused the
instantaneous death of his said wife.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon being arraigned the accused pleaded guilty to the crime

charged, but interposed the defense that he is entitled to the exceptional
privilege of Article 247 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

The prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Parricide, without however
applying the privilege granted under Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code by presenting as evidence the testimony of CIRIACO CRUZ, cousin of
the victim, as follows.

On August 1, 1980, at around 7:30 in the evening, CIRIACO CRUZ,

cousin of the victim, was in his room in the house where the accused
Juan dela Cruz and victim Maria Clara dela Cruz lived. That same night,
Maria Clara asked permission from Juan dela Cruz that she be allowed to
go out of the house and buy something from the store. Thirty (30)
minutes has passed and Maria Clara was still not home, so Juan went out
to look for her.

At or about 8:30 in the evening, Ciriaco heard that the spouses dela
Cruz were already home and an argument ensued between them. Ciriaco
heard Maria Clara uttering the word Aray! several times. Thereafter,
Maria Clara entered the room of Ciriaco, followed by Juan who then
stabbed her in front of him. Ciriaco shouted for Maria Clara and they both
ran away but the latter fell on the ground as Juan stabbed her again.
From afar, Ciriaco saw Juan dela Cruz leave the house.

On March 15, 1985, on the strength of the prosecutions evidence

the Regional Trial Court promulgated its decision. The dispositive portion
of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Juan dela Cruz

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of
Parricide, committing with the use of a knife and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P90,000.00 as moral damages;
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.

Accused Juan dela Cruz appealed the matter to the Court of

Appeals raising his arguments in his Memorandum.

2
 COUNTER-ARGUMENT
Plaintiff-appellee raises this counter-argument to the sole
assignment of error raised by the accused-appellant:

The trial court is correct in finding that the killing of the

accused-appellant of his wife does not fall under the exceptional
circumstances mentioned under the provision of Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code.

DISCUSSION
The trial court is correct in finding that the killing of the
accused-appellant of his wife does not fall under the exceptional
circumstances mentioned under the provision of Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that accused-appellant Juan

dela Cruz admits killing his wife Maria Clara dela Cruz. This is clear from
his testimony during the trial court hearing.1
Such fact was also established with the help of the testimony of the
sole witness for the prosecution Ciriaco Cruz, who was at the house of
spouses dela Cruz when the stabbing took place.

The prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Parricide.

The accused-appellant however wishes to invoke the exceptional

benefit granted under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code which reads
in part:

ART. 247. 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 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.

x x x.

The accused-appellant would have this Honorable Court believe

that this is a crime of passion. So is passion then a license to kill?

In order for an accused to validly avail of the exceptional benefit

granted under the above-mentioned article, the following requisites must

1
Transcript of Stenographic Notes, 2.

3
concur: (1) That a legally married person xxx surprises his spouse xxx in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and (2)
That he/she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them
any serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter.2

The law outlines the elements that must be present in order for an
offender to escape criminal liability, when in truth he has committed a
crime. Strict compliance of the law must be expected. In examining the
circumstances attendant in the present case, the trial court found the
accused-appellant guilty of parricide. Absent the second requisite, the
accused-appellant is not entitled to the exceptional benefit granted
under Article 247.

The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights.3 Courts must be very vigilant in applying
the provisions of Article 247 so as not to encourage murder between
spouses just because one is blinded by jealousy caused by the infidel
spouse.

Juan dela Cruz narrated what transpired during that tragic night.
According to him, while he was looking for his wife, he tripped on a wire
lying across the way. This caused him to fall on the ground, and as he was
starting to rise, he saw two figures amidst the darkness, that of a man
and a woman who were in a position to hold sexual intercourse, and
recognized them to be his wife and her paramour Pedro. As the two
figures heard the noise, they hurriedly rose from the ground and ran
away.

In one of the jurisprudential pronouncements made by the Supreme

Court, [the Court] do[es] not believe that the accused can avail
himself of the aforesaid article, because 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.4
Possible as it may be that the two figures were that of Maria Clara
and Pedro, it is also likely that the two figures were not them. As
narrated by Juan himself, it was already night time when the incident
happened amidst the grass near a clump of thick bamboo, and perhaps
because of the darkness of the night, he tripped on a wire along his way.
Human vision cannot be trusted during night time especially so if there is

2
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book Two (Eighteenth Edition, 2012), 529.
3
Article II, Section 11, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
4
People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310, October 31, 1939.

4
no enough light in the surrounding. Are we to believe that Juans vision
was not impaired notwithstanding the darkness of the night?

It would be unfair to admit his testimony, hook, line and sinker, just
because he was so sure that the figures he saw were that of his wife and
her alleged paramour.

Granting, without admitting, that the two figures were that of

Maria Clara and Pedro, it cannot be said that the position they were in
when Juan saw them was that of having sexual intercourse. A man lying
on top of a woman can mean a lot of things. It can be that the woman
might have slipped and the man was just helping her to stand up. Or it
can be that the woman might have fainted and the man was just checking
her vital signs or was just trying to resuscitate her. It may seem in the
eyes of Juan that the two figures were in a position to hold sexual
intercourse, but acts preparatory to having sexual intercourse are not
covered under Article 274. The situation is capable of many
interpretations. Juan was not able to clearly establish that he caught his
wife and her alleged paramour in the act of having sexual intercourse.

Juan did not give his wife a chance to defend or explain herself.
Believing that what he saw was clearly his wife and her alleged paramour
having sexual intercourse, Juan, upon failing to pursue the alleged
paramour and blinded by jealousy, went home, reprimanded his wife, and
immediately stabbed her.

PRAYER
VIEWED IN THE FOREGOING LIGHT, it is respectfully prayed for that
the instant appeal be DENIED for lack of merit. Other relief and remedies
as are just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

June 14, 1990 Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

New Ymca Bldg., Cagayan de Oro City
By ATTY. SOL C. GENERAL
Associate Solicitor General

Copy Furnished:
Atty. Ferdie E. Accused
The Firm Law Office
XYZ Building, Iligan City

5
Counsel of the Accused-appellant