G.R. No. 97961 September 5, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JIMMY TALISIC y VILLAMOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jimmy Talisic, was charged with and convicted of parricide for the killing of his wife, Janita Sapio Talisic, by the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City. The prosecution evidence established that at dawn on May 8, 1988, their 16-year-old son, Danilo, witnessed his father stab his mother to death with a chisel. Danilo later found the bloodied weapon placed on their home altar. The victim’s sister corroborated finding the body and the chisel. A medical examination revealed the victim sustained sixteen stab wounds, some four inches deep, which caused her death from hemorrhage and shock.
The defense consisted solely of the testimony of the accused-appellant. He admitted killing his wife but claimed he did so after surprising her in the act of sexual intercourse with another man in their living room. He testified that he had left to fetch water, and upon returning, saw the man on top of his wife. He claimed he tried to stab the man, who fled, and then his wife attacked him with the chisel. He allegedly wrested the chisel and, in a fit of rage, killed her.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue is whether the accused-appellant’s act of killing his wife falls under the exceptional circumstances provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which would justify or mitigate his criminal liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the failure of the accused-appellant to substantiate the stringent requirements of Article 247. This provision, which reduces the penalty for a killing committed by a spouse upon surprising the other in the act of sexual intercourse, demands clear, positive, and convincing proof. The Court found the appellant’s testimony uncorroborated, implausible, and riddled with inconsistencies. His claim of discovering the illicit act was deemed a mere concoction, as no evidence corroborated the existence of the alleged paramour. Furthermore, his subsequent conduct—such as not immediately reporting the incident to authorities and instead waiting for his father to bring him to a military camp—was deemed contrary to the natural reaction of a genuinely aggrieved spouse. The brutality of the attack, evidenced by sixteen stab wounds, also belied a spontaneous act of passion. Consequently, the defense of de flagrante delicto under Article 247 was rejected, and his guilt for the crime of parricide under Article 246 was upheld beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and civil indemnity were affirmed.