People vs. Macal

The exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code does not apply where the accused, intending to kill another person, performs an unlawful act that results in the death of his spouse, as the injury is not caused "without fault or intention of causing it" but rather stems from a deliberate intent to kill.

Manuel Macal y Bolasco, employed as a security guard in Manila, returned to his family in Tacloban City on February 12, 2003. He was married to Auria Ytac Macal, with whom he had two children, and they resided with Auria's mother, Angeles Ytac, in V & G Subdivision, Tacloban City. In the early morning hours of that date, following a fiesta celebration, Macal and his wife entered their bedroom while other family members and friends remained in the living room approximately four meters away.

• The Incident: At approximately 1:20 a.m. on February 12, 2003, Angeles Ytac, her children (including Auria), and several friends returned to their residence in V & G Subdivision, Tacloban City, after attending a local peryahan. The accused-appellant, who had arrived from Manila, met them along the way and joined the group. Upon arrival, while the others proceeded to the living room, Auria and the accused-appellant entered their bedroom located approximately four meters away. Shortly thereafter, Angeles and the others heard Auria shouting, "mother help me I am going to be killed." The bedroom door was found locked; Arvin Ytac kicked it open. Inside, they found Auria bloodied on one side of the room and the accused-appellant attempting to stab himself with an improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle). Auria was taken to the hospital but pronounced dead on arrival from hemorrhagic shock secondary to a stab wound. The accused-appellant escaped by jumping over the fence before police arrived.

• Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution presented Angeles Ytac and Erwin Silvano. Angeles testified regarding the spousal relationship, the living arrangements, and the events of the stabbing. Erwin corroborated that he heard Auria's screams from the living room and, upon entering the bedroom after the door was forced open, saw the accused-appellant stab Auria on the upper left portion of her chest with a stainless knife, then stab himself with a belt buckle before fleeing. The prosecution offered Auria's Certificate of Death indicating the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock secondary to stab wound.

• Defense Evidence: The accused-appellant admitted killing Auria but claimed the stabbing was accidental. He testified that upon arriving home, his brother-in-law Arvin warned him not to enter the bedroom because Auria was with another man and he might be killed. Ignoring the warning, he kicked the door open and saw Auria and a man seated beside each other conversing. Enraged, he exited, retrieved a knife, and delivered a stab blow intended for the man, but Auria shielded the man and was hit instead. Out of frustration for failing to kill the man, he wounded himself on the chest and left for the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC). Benito Billota, a bus acquaintance, corroborated that he accompanied the accused-appellant home, heard a thudding sound from the bedroom, and saw a man running out. Nerissa Alcantara, an officer from EVRMC, confirmed the accused-appellant sustained a three-centimeter non-penetrating wound at the left parasternal level and another lacerated wound on the left anterior chest.

• Lower Court Findings: The RTC gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses, finding the accused-appellant's version doubtful and contrary to human experience. The RTC noted that Auria's scream indicated she feared for her life, and the accused-appellant's flight and self-inflicted wounds indicated guilt rather than accident.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident: Petitioner argued that the stabbing was accidental under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, claiming he intended to stab another man but Auria inadvertently shielded the intended victim, resulting in her accidental death.

• Absolutory Cause under Article 247: Petitioner alternatively argued that he was entitled to the benefits of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (death under exceptional circumstances), asserting that he surprised his wife in the act of infidelity with another man, which caused him to lose control and stab them.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner contended that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as no witness actually saw him stab Auria.

• Elements of Parricide: Respondent argued that all elements of parricide were established: (1) a person was killed; (2) the deceased was killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased was the legitimate spouse of the accused. The spousal relationship was admitted during pre-trial and confirmed by the marriage certificate.

• Intentional Killing: Respondent countered that the defense of accident must fail because the accused-appellant admitted he intended to kill the man he found with his wife, and the act of stabbing with a knife demonstrates clear intent to kill, negating the "without fault or intention" requirement of Article 12(4).

• Inapplicability of Article 247: Respondent maintained that Article 247 requires proof that the spouse was surprised in the act of committing sexual intercourse, not merely conversing with another person, and that the defense failed to prove this vital element.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident: Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Absolutory Cause under Article 247: Whether Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) constitutes an absolutory cause applicable to the accused-appellant.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The conviction for parricide was affirmed. All three elements of the crime were established: Auria's death was proven by the Certificate of Death and witness testimonies; the spousal relationship was admitted by the defense and proven by the marriage certificate; and the accused-appellant's culpability was established by his own judicial admission that he delivered the fatal stabbing blow. The prosecution's circumstantial evidence, corroborated by the accused-appellant's admissions, sufficiently established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident: The defense of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code was rejected. The requisites of accident require that: (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without fault or intention of causing it. The accused-appellant failed to satisfy these requisites because he admitted under cross-examination that he intended to kill the man he found with his wife, thereby performing an unlawful act with deliberate intent. The defense presupposes lack of intention to kill, which was contradicted by the accused-appellant's testimony and by Auria's screams indicating she feared for her life. Moreover, the accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving the exempting circumstance by clear and convincing evidence, relying only on self-serving statements unsupported by other proof.

• Absolutory Cause under Article 247: Article 247 was held inapplicable. The provision requires: (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 consented to the infidelity. The most vital element—that the accused surprised his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter—was not proven. The accused-appellant himself testified that he saw his wife and the man merely seated and conversing, not engaged in sexual intercourse. Having admitted the killing, the burden shifted to the defense to prove the concurrence of these elements, which they failed to discharge.

• Penalty and Damages: The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed pursuant to Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9346 (prohibiting the death penalty), and Article 63 of the same Code (imposing the lesser penalty in the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances). Civil indemnity was increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; exemplary damages of P30,000.00 were maintained; and temperate damages of P25,000.00 were affirmed. All monetary awards were ordered to earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

• Elements of Parricide — Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any other legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The relationship between offender and victim is the qualifying element that distinguishes parricide from homicide. In cases involving spouses, the best proof of relationship is the marriage certificate, though oral evidence may suffice if uncontested.

• Requisites of Accident as Exempting Circumstance — Under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, accident as an exempting circumstance requires: (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without fault or intention of causing it. The defense presupposes a complete absence of intent to kill or cause injury. Where the accused admits an intent to kill another person, the resulting death of a different person cannot be deemed accidental but is intentional homicide (or parricide, if the relationship exists).

• Absolutory Cause under Article 247 — Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code provides an absolutory cause (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) that recognizes the commission of a crime but imposes no penalty for reasons of public policy. The requisites are: (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 consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. The most vital element is proof that the spouse was caught in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter; mere conversation or companionship does not suffice.

• Burden of Proof for Defenses — In raising affirmative defenses such as accident or absolutory causes, the accused bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the elements of such defenses. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's case.

• "The defense of accident presupposes lack of intention to kill. This certainly does not hold true in the instant case based on the aforequoted testimony of the accused-appellant." — Establishes that intent to kill negates the defense of accident under Article 12(4).

• "Among the three elements [of Article 247], the most vital is that the accused-appellant must prove to the court that he killed his wife and her paramour in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter." — Emphasizes the strict requirement for the absolutory cause of death under exceptional circumstances.

• "Given these testimonies, the accused-appellant's defense of accident is negated as he was carrying out an unlawful act at the time of the incident." — Reinforces that performing an unlawful act with intent to kill precludes the exempting circumstance of accident.

• People v. Malabago, 333 Phil. 20 (1996) — Cited for the definition of the elements of parricide and the requirement that the relationship between offender and victim is the crucial element distinguishing parricide from homicide.

• People v. Paycana, Jr., 574 Phil. 780 (2008) — Followed for the proposition that the relationship between offender and victim is the most crucial element in parricide.

• Toledo v. People, 482 Phil. 292 (2004) — Cited for the requisites of accident as an exempting circumstance under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

• People v. Oyanib, 406 Phil. 650 (2001) — Followed for the definition of Article 247 as an absolutory cause and its three essential elements.

• People v. Talisic, 344 Phil. 51 (1997) — Cited for the rule that where the accused admits the killing, the burden of proof shifts to the defense to show the applicability of Article 247.

• People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013 — Followed for the rule that civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of death and the accused's commission of the crime.

• People v. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701 (2009) — Cited as basis for awarding P25,000.00 as temperate damages where funeral expenses cannot be determined with certainty due to lack of receipts.

• Article 246, Revised Penal Code (Parricide) — Defines parricide as the killing of a father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any other legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused, and imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applied to establish the crime charged and the penalty imposed.

• Article 12(4), Revised Penal Code (Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability) — Provides that any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it is exempt from criminal liability. Applied to reject the accused-appellant's defense.

• Article 247, Revised Penal Code (Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) — Provides an absolutory cause for a legally married person who surprises his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another and kills them or inflicts serious physical injuries. Applied to reject the alternative defense.

• Article 63, Revised Penal Code (Rules for the application of indivisible penalties) — Provides that in the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. Applied to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua instead of death.

• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Applied to affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Article 2224, Civil Code (Temperate or moderate damages) — Allows recovery of temperate damages when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Applied to affirm the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.