G.R. No. 102984 June 30, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ruben Takbobo, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ruben Takbobo was charged with parricide for hacking and stabbing his wife, Lucia Takbobo, to death on March 25, 1991, in Barangay Guiwanon, Ginatilan, Cebu. He pleaded guilty at arraignment. The trial court, following procedure, required evidence to determine motive and circumstances. The prosecution presented evidence including the testimony of the couple’s six-year-old daughter, Madilyn, who witnessed the quarrel and the hacking. She testified her parents were arguing because her father could not pay a debt to a certain Danilo. The prosecution also presented testimony from a policeman, Reynaldo Singco, who stated that during appellant’s custodial investigation, appellant did not mention catching his wife with another man or coming from fishing. Another daughter, Irene, testified about appellant’s prior violent acts against family members. Appellant claimed he killed his wife because he caught her sleeping with their neighbor, Cadiz Catulong, upon arriving home from fishing. He argued for the application of the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, voluntary surrender, and plea of guilty.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) whether appellant could avail himself of the justifying circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code (killing upon discovery of spouse in flagrante delicto); and (2) whether the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, voluntary surrender, and plea of guilty were present.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment finding appellant guilty of parricide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court held that appellant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he killed his wife while she was in flagrante delicto with another man. His lone testimony was uncorroborated, inconsistent (initially stating he saw them sleeping, later stating the man was putting on his pants after the act), and contradicted by the physical evidence (multiple fatal wounds negated his claim of accidental killing; pictures suggested the victim was wearing panties). The testimonies of the child witnesses were credible. The Court agreed that the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilty were present. However, the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was not appreciated because the alleged discovery of infidelity was not proven. Despite the presence of two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty for parricide (reclusion perpetua to death) is indivisible. Therefore, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, not Article 64(5). The penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.