G.R. No. 95357 June 9, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eduardo Gelaver, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Eduardo Gelaver was charged with Parricide for stabbing and killing his lawfully wedded wife, Victoria Gelaver y Pacinabao, on March 24, 1988, in Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Sto. Niño, South Cotabato. At arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Randy Mamon, who testified that he saw appellant and the victim having a heated argument, after which appellant held the victim’s neck, dragged her, and stabbed her three times on the breast with a knife before fleeing. Appellant admitted killing his wife but claimed he did so after catching her in the act of sexual intercourse with her paramour. He testified that his wife had abandoned their conjugal home in July 1987 to live with a paramour, and that on March 24, 1988, upon being informed by his daughter, he went to a house where he saw his wife and her paramour having sexual intercourse. Appellant claimed the paramour attacked him with a knife, he wrestled the knife away, and in the ensuing struggle, while the paramour used the victim as a shield, he stabbed his wife. He asserted his mind was “dimmed” by passion and obfuscation. The trial court found him guilty of parricide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs in the amount of P30,000.00. The trial court considered the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion or obfuscation. Appellant appealed, contending that the penalty should be destierro under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code for killing under exceptional circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not applying Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty of destierro for a legally married person who kills or inflicts serious physical injury upon a spouse or paramour caught in the act of sexual intercourse.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The Court held that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code could not be applied because appellant failed to establish its requisites. The requisites are: (1) a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) he kills any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and (3) he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or consented to her infidelity. These requisites must be proven by the defense. The Court found appellant’s testimony tainted with inconsistencies and lacking credibility. It noted his failure to inform the police of the alleged reason for the killing immediately after the incident, the improbability of a naked paramour escaping unnoticed, and contradictions in his testimony regarding chasing the paramour and the location where he saw the act. The testimony of his daughter also belied his claim that she informed him of his wife’s whereabouts. The trial court’s findings were accorded full consideration. The Court agreed with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender but corrected the trial court by ruling that the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was not present, as the alleged cause (his wife’s abandonment almost a year prior) was too remote from the commission of the crime. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld. The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.