G.R. No. 95262 January 4, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Emmanuel Desalisa, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Emmanuel Desalisa, a 24-year-old farmer, was charged with the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion for the death of his legal wife, Norma Desalisa, who was approximately five months pregnant. The information alleged that on or about October 9, 1983, in Sitio Pinaductan, Bacon, Sorsogon, moved by hatred and jealousy, he assaulted her with a sharp pointed instrument on the vagina and subsequently hanged her with a rope from a jackfruit tree, causing her death and that of her fetus. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence: the victim’s parents testified about prior altercations and accused-appellant’s jealousy; a neighbor testified about accused-appellant’s unusual behavior on the night of the incident, including borrowing a flashlight to look for his wife, returning silently, making strange utterances, and appearing frightened; the victim’s father discovered the body hanging, with the rope missing from their hammock; the police investigator noted the scene was inconsistent with suicide and that accused-appellant was trembling when questioned; and the autopsy report indicated death by asphyxiation from hanging and injuries to the genitalia. The accused-appellant denied the crime, claiming his wife might have committed suicide and that his in-laws harbored ill feelings against him.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Emmanuel Desalisa is guilty of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The combination of facts—the prior quarrels due to jealousy, his unusual behavior and utterances on the night of the crime, the missing rope from his house used to hang the victim, the physical evidence inconsistent with suicide, and his conduct after the discovery—formed an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that he committed the crime. The trial court erred in convicting him only of parricide. The evidence proved the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion, as the abortion was caused by the same violence that killed the victim, though unintentional. The penalty for the more serious crime (parricide) in its maximum period is imposed for complex crimes. The maximum penalty for parricide is death, but due to the constitutional proscription, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The decision was modified: accused-appellant is found guilty of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.