Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
People vs Marciano Gonzales
G.R. No. 46310
October 31, 1939
At the trial, appellant Marciano Gonzales testified that at midday on June 2, 1938, on returning to his house from the woods, he surprised his wife, Sixta Quilason, and Isabelo Evangelio in the act, told her that the man was the very one who used to ask rice and food from them, and counseled her not to repeat the same faithlessness. His wife, promised him not to do the act again. The accused left the house again and went towards the South to see his carabaos. Upon returning to his house at above five o'clock in the afternoon, and not finding his wife there, he looked for her and found her with Isabelo near the toilet of his house in a place covered with underbush, who was standing and buttoning his drawers, immediately took to his heels. The accused went after him, but unable to overtake him, he returned to where his wife was and, completely obfuscated, attacked her with a knife without intending to kill her. Thereafter, he took pity on her and took her dead body to his house.
The appellant contends that, having surprised his wife, in the afternoon of the date in question, under circumstances indicative that she had carnal intercourse with Isabelo, he was entitled to the privilege afforded by article 247 of the Revised Penal code providing: "Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill either of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
W/O the accused-appellant committed the crime under Art 247 of the RPC?
No. The court entirely accept the defense sought to be established by the accused, first, because his testimony is improbable. It is not conceivable that the accused had only mildly counseled his wife not to repeat committing adultery with Isabelo, instead of taking harsher measures as is natural in such circumstances, if the were true that he had surprised the two offender in the act of adultery on returning to his house at midday on the date in question. Neither is it likely that a woman thirty years of age, like Sixta Quilason, and twenty-five-year old Isabelo Evangelio, both of sound judgment as is to be supposed, had dared to have carnal intercourse near the toilet of the offended party house, a place which is naturally frequented by some persons. The circumstance that the place was covered by weeds, does not authorize the conclusion that the offenders could lay concealed under the weeds because the latter do not usually grow to such height as to conceal or cover two persons committing the guilt act. It seems that under the circumstances it is unnatural that they would execute the act in a place uncovered and open. We do not want to suppose that the sexual passion of two persons would border on madness.
Secondly, because even assuming that the accused caught his wife rising up and Isabelo cannot invoke the privilege of article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, because he did not surprise the supposed offenders in the very act of committing adultery, but thereafter, if the respective positions of the woman and the man were sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they had committed the carnal act. (3 Viada, Penal Code, p. 96; People vs. Marquez, 53 Phil., 260).Taking into account the mitigating circumstances of lack of intention on the part of the accused to commit so grave a wrong as that committed upon the person of the deceased, and of his lack of instruction, the appealed judgment is modified, and the accused is sentenced to the penalty of twelve years and one day to twenty years of reclusion temporal and indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000 with the costs. So ordered.