Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes the penalty of destierro on a legally married person who kills their spouse or the spouse's paramour immediately after surprising them in the act of sexual intercourse, does not define a crime but grants a special privilege or benefit, negating conviction for homicide or murder; consequently, the act cannot be qualified by circumstances like treachery, nor can it form part of a complex crime.

The case arose from an illicit relationship between Khingsley Paul Koh and Jenny Abarca, the wife of accused-appellant Francisco Abarca. This relationship began while Francisco Abarca was away in Manila reviewing for the 1983 bar examinations, leaving his wife behind in Tacloban, Leyte.

• Accused-appellant Francisco Abarca was legally married to Jenny Abarca.
• While Abarca was reviewing for the bar exams in Manila, his wife Jenny began an illicit relationship with Khingsley Paul Koh in Tacloban.
• On July 15, 1984, Abarca returned to his residence in Tacloban at around 6:00 PM and discovered his wife and Koh in the act of sexual intercourse.
• When discovered, Koh pushed Jenny away and grabbed his revolver; Abarca, who was peeping from above a cabinet, jumped down and fled.
• Abarca went to the house of a PC soldier, C2C Arturo Talbo, around 6:30 PM and obtained an M-16 rifle.
• Unable to find his wife and Koh at his residence, Abarca proceeded to Koh's known "hangout," a place where mahjong was played.
• Abarca found Koh playing mahjong and fired at him three times with the M-16 rifle.
• Koh died instantly from multiple gunshot wounds to the head, trunk, and abdomen.
• Arnold Amparado and Lina Amparado, who were in an adjacent room, were hit by stray bullets or fragments.
• Arnold Amparado required hospitalization and surgery for a kidney injury, incapacitating him from work for 1.5 months and incurring P15,000 in medical expenses.
• Lina Amparado was also treated at the hospital for injuries from bullet fragments, incurring P1,000 in expenses; her recovery period was estimated at ten to fourteen days.
• Approximately one hour elapsed between Abarca discovering the adulterous act and his shooting of Koh.

• The prosecution (plaintiff-appellee) argued that the accused committed the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery.
• The Solicitor General, representing the appellee in the Supreme Court, recommended the application of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code for the killing of Koh but argued for a conviction of double frustrated murder for the injuries sustained by the Amparados, invoking Article 48 for complex crimes.

• The accused-appellant, Francisco Abarca, argued that his conviction should be under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances) instead of murder.
• Abarca contended that the killing was not attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

• Whether Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to the killing of Khingsley Paul Koh by the accused-appellant.
• Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing of Koh.
• What is the criminal liability, if any, of the accused-appellant for the injuries sustained by Arnold and Lina Amparado?

• The Supreme Court ruled that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code applies because the accused surprised his spouse and her paramour in the act of sexual intercourse and killed the paramour immediately thereafter; the one-hour interval did not preclude the application of the article as the shooting was deemed a continuation of the pursuit, proximately caused by the outrage overwhelming the accused.
• The Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated because Article 247 does not define a felony but grants a privilege or benefit; hence, the act of killing under these circumstances is not punishable homicide or murder that can be qualified.
• The Court found the accused-appellant not liable for frustrated murder concerning the Amparados because he was not committing a felony (murder) when he shot Koh; however, he was found liable for Less Serious Physical Injuries through Simple Imprudence or Negligence under Article 365 for failing to exercise sufficient precaution, resulting in the injuries to the bystanders.
• The appealed decision was MODIFIED: Abarca was sentenced to four months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor for the less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the Amparados (this being graver than the destierro corresponding to Art. 247), with credit for preventive imprisonment, and ordered to indemnify the Amparados P16,000 for expenses and P1,500 for loss of earning capacity.

• Article 247, Revised Penal Code (Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted Under Exceptional Circumstances): This article provides for the significantly reduced penalty of destierro for a legally married person who kills their spouse or the spouse's paramour after surprising them in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter. The Court emphasized that this article does not define a crime but grants a privilege or benefit, effectively exempting the accused from regular homicide/murder/parricide penalties due to the immense provocation. The phrase "immediately thereafter" was interpreted to mean that the killing must be the proximate result of the outrage, driven by a blind impulse, even if some time (like an hour) has passed, as long as it's a continuation of the pursuit and not influenced by external factors.
• Article 365, Revised Penal Code (Imprudence and Negligence): This article penalizes acts causing damage to persons or property through reckless or simple imprudence/negligence. It was applied because, although Abarca was not committing a felony under Article 247 when he shot Koh, he failed to exercise due care to prevent injury to bystanders (the Amparados), making him liable for the resulting less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code (Penalty for Complex Crimes): This article provides the penalty for complex crimes (when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other). It was deemed inapplicable because the killing of Koh under Article 247 was not considered a felony, thus it could not be complexed with the injuries caused to the Amparados.
• Treachery (Alevosia): This is a qualifying circumstance under Article 14(16) of the RPC, involving the employment of means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender from any defense the victim might make. The Court ruled treachery cannot qualify an act falling under Article 247, as the latter does not constitute a punishable felony like murder.
• Non-Classification of Art. 247 as a Crime: The Court reiterated the doctrine from People v. Araquel that Article 247 does not define a specific crime but provides an exceptional circumstance that grants a privilege or benefit (a drastically reduced penalty or exemption), distinguishing it from justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstances which are defenses against standard felony charges.

• "We, therefore, conclude that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code does not define and provide for a specific crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the infliction of serious physical injuries under the circumstances therein mentioned..."
• "It must be stressed furthermore that Article 247, supra, does not define an offense."
• "Punishment, consequently, is not inflicted upon the accused. He is banished, but that is intended for his protection."
• "Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances, not being a punishable act cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying circumstances. We cannot accordingly appreciate treachery in this case."
• "Although as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony."

• People v. Araquel, 106 Phil. 677 (1959): Cited extensively to support the doctrine that Article 247 of the RPC does not define a crime but grants a privilege or benefit (resulting in destierro), and that the exceptional circumstances need not be pleaded in the information but are matters of defense.
• People v. Coricor, 79 Phil. 672: Cited within the quote from Araquel to illustrate that destierro under Article 247 is intended more for the protection of the accused than as a punishment.
• U.S. v. Campo, 23 Phil. 368: Cited within the quote from Araquel regarding the principle that only acts constituting the offense, not mitigating or exempting circumstances (which are matters of defense), need to be pleaded in the information.

• Revised Penal Code, Article 247: Basis for the main ruling regarding the killing of Koh under exceptional circumstances.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 63: Mentioned by the trial court regarding the imposition of the death penalty (as the prescribed penalty was single and indivisible).
• Revised Penal Code, Article 48: Discussed in relation to the potential complex crime, but ultimately deemed inapplicable.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 365: Applied to determine liability for the injuries caused to the Amparados through simple imprudence or negligence.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 4: Referenced to explain that criminal liability for consequences generally attaches only when committing a felony (delito).
• Revised Penal Code, Article 71: Cited regarding the relative gravity of penalties (arresto mayor being graver than destierro).
• Old Penal Code, Article 423: Mentioned as the counterpart to RPC Article 247, noting its placement under General Provisions further supported the view that it did not define a distinct crime.
• Rules of Court, Rule 106, Section 5 (now Rule 110, Sec. 6 & 8): Cited regarding the requirement to state only the acts or omissions constituting the offense in the information.