G.R. No. 108491 July 2, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERGIO AMAMANGPANG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 8, 1991, SPO1 Placido Flores was killed in the home of appellant Sergio Amamangpang in Guadalupe, Carmen, Bohol. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Manuel Noculan, testified that he, Flores, and a trustee-prisoner, Elorde Galacio, went to appellant’s house in the early morning. Upon entering, Noculan saw Flores sitting on the stairs. Suddenly, he heard a child shout, “Father! Don’t!” He then saw appellant holding a scythe about to strike Flores, who was already lying prostrate on the ground with blood oozing from his neck. Noculan ran and, while running, heard several gunshots. Appellant later arrived at the police station, surrendered a .38 revolver and empty shells, and admitted to killing Flores. The postmortem report indicated the victim died from multiple incised and gunshot wounds. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting appellant acted out of jealousy. Appellant admitted killing Flores but claimed he did so in defense of his wife’s honor, having caught Flores and his wife, Sinforiana, engaged in a sexual act. His wife and daughter corroborated his account, testifying that Flores attempted to abuse Sinforiana. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of murder, finding treachery and appreciating nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

1. Whether the killing is justified as an act of defense of honor or falls under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted Under Exceptional Circumstances).
2. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating nighttime as an aggravating circumstance and in convicting appellant of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the killing was not justified under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, as the requisites were not met; the appellant did not kill the victim immediately upon catching him in the act of sexual intercourse, as there was an interval during which a struggle for the gun occurred. The Court also found that treachery was not present. The attack with the scythe was not proven to be deliberate and sudden from behind, and the subsequent shooting occurred during a struggle for the victim’s gun, which negated treachery. The Court ruled that the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not appreciated, as it was not shown to have been purposely sought to facilitate the crime. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated in appellant’s favor. Appellant was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum as maximum. The monetary awards to the victim’s heirs were affirmed.