GR L 32792; (February, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32792 February 2, 1979
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO BASTASA @ DIONY and VIRGINIA DUGENIA BASTASA, defendants. DIONISIO BASTASA alias “DIONY”, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The spouses Dionisio and Virginia Bastasa were charged with murder for the killing of Atty. Solomon Sudiacal on December 2, 1966. The prosecution evidence established that the deceased went to the Bastasa residence to inquire about an order for cigarettes. While waiting in the sala, he was shot multiple times by Dionisio Bastasa. Witnesses saw the appellant aiming a gun at the victim and firing shots, after which the spouses moved the body. The trial court convicted Dionisio Bastasa as principal for murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and acquitted Virginia Bastasa as an accessory after the fact, exempt due to her being the spouse of the principal.
The appellant admitted to the killing but presented a different version. He claimed he arrived home late to find a stranger’s jacket and a .45 caliber pistol in his sala. Hearing noises from his bedroom, he took the pistol, went downstairs, and saw his wife struggling with a naked man. In the ensuing confrontation, he shot the man, who was later identified as Atty. Sudiacal. He asserted the killing was in defense of his wife’s honor, invoking the provisions of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder instead of applying Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for a lesser penalty for a killing committed under exceptional circumstances involving defense of honor.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It found that the killing fell under the exceptional circumstances defined in Article 247. The legal logic is that Article 247 applies when a person kills another caught in the act of having sexual intercourse with the offender’s spouse, provided the killing is done immediately or shortly after the discovery. The Court found the appellant’s version credible, supported by the physical evidence of the victim’s nakedness and the location of the body in the kitchen, which aligned with a sudden, violent discovery rather than a premeditated murder. The prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the applicable law is Article 247, not murder.
Under Article 247, the prescribed penalty is destierro. The Court further ruled that the appellant is entitled to credit for his preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as destierro, while not imprisonment, constitutes a deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the appellant was held guilty under Article 247 and sentenced to destierro. Given the period of his preventive imprisonment, he was ordered to be immediately released from custody.