People v. Foronda

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226847. April 1, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SPO2 JOHN GABRIEL FORONDA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 1, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 226847 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPO2 JOHN GABRIEL FORONDA, Accused-Appellant.) — After a judicious review, the Court resolves to DENY the appeal from the decision 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 14, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05219 whereby the CA affirmed with modification the March 19, 2003 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Quezon City finding the accused SPO2 John Gabriel Foronda (John) guilty of parricide.

The accused-appellant claimed that the courts a quo erred in convicting him of parricide; that the benefit provided under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code should have been extended to him because he killed his wife while she was in actual sexual congress with another man. HTcADC

We are not convinced.

In order to avail of the defense under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused must prove the attendance of all the essential elements in the said absolutory cause by clear and convincing evidence, thus:

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.'

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. 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." 3

The Court notes that the accused-appellant did not present proof of his allegations that he chanced upon his wife and another man in the act of sexual intercourse. Based on the testimonies of the State witnesses, it was highly improbable that the accused had shot his wife's paramour on his shoulder; that the bullet passed through the latter and hit her in the stomach; that physical evidence shows that his wife was shot twice; and that the trajectory and the distance of the shot also betrayed accused-appellant's theory that he chanced upon his unfaithful wife and her paramour. Also, an ocular inspection of the room revealed that the supposed escape of his wife's paramour was incredible considering that the room was small and cramped.

Indeed, the Court has ruled that evidence, to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind. 4 Since herein accused-appellant admitted to the killing of his wife and failed to prove that the killing was done under extraneous circumstance, his conviction must be affirmed. CAIHTE

Nonetheless, We need to modify the awards for damages given to the heirs of the victim to conform to with the Court's pronouncement in People v. Jugueta. 5 Accordingly, the Court increases the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages from P50,000.00, P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, repectively to P75,000.00 each. All these amounts, together with the actual damages, shall earn interest at six percent per annum (6%) from finality of this resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal; AFFIRMS the September 14, 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05219 with MODIFICATIONS that the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages shall be increased to P75,000.00 each; and ORDERS the accused to pay interest at the rate six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."Jardeleza, J., on official business.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, concurred by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.

2. CA rollo, pp. 32-41; penned by Presiding Judge Monina A. Zenarosa (retired).

3.People v. Oyanib, G.R. Nos. 130634-35, March 12, 2001, 354 SCRA 196, 204.

4.People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 192250, July 11, 2012, 676 SCRA 347, 360.

5. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382.