G.R. No. 61704 March 8, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NUEPE WAGAS y MILAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Nuepe Wagas, was convicted of parricide for the killing of his wife, Victoria Viscaya-Wagas. The prosecution established that on April 30, 1981, in Baguio City, Wagas approached his wife and her companions, slapped her, and then stabbed her twice after she fell into a canal. Eyewitnesses, including the victim’s sister and brother, corroborated the attack. The victim died from her wounds. When police arrived at Wagas’s house, they found him in the bathroom with a blood-stained knife and an empty poison bottle.
Wagas admitted to the killing but interposed the justifying circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. He claimed he arrived home to find his wife engaged in a sexual act with another man, Jacinto Solano. In a fit of rage, he armed himself, but the man fled. He later confronted his wife at a neighbor’s house, where an altercation ensued during which she was fatally stabbed. He asserted the killing was a result of the outrage caused by discovering her infidelity.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the justifying circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code for killing his spouse after allegedly surprising her in the act of adultery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the strict requirements of Article 247, which provides a defense if a legally married person kills a spouse or paramour upon being surprised in the act of sexual intercourse, provided the killing occurs during the act or immediately thereafter. The Court found the appellant’s defense unsubstantiated. His sole, uncorroborated testimony about discovering the adultery was successfully rebutted by prosecution witnesses who placed the victim elsewhere, picking strawberries, throughout the morning of the killing. This created an improbability of the alleged adulterous rendezvous.
The Court emphasized that the defense under Article 247 requires conclusive proof of the flagrante delicto discovery. General evidence of the wife’s alleged infidelity or prior marital discord is insufficient to invoke the defense. The law strictly confines the justifying rage to the precise moment of discovery to prevent abuse. Since the appellant failed to prove the essential element of catching his wife in the act, the issue of whether the killing was immediate became irrelevant. Consequently, the killing did not fall under the exceptional circumstance of Article 247 but constituted the crime of parricide under Article 246. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld, with the civil indemnity increased to P30,000.00.