Scribd
Upload
270 views2 pages

PEOPLE v. ABARCA

The accused Francisco Abarca caught his wife Jenney having sexual intercourse with her paramour Kingsley Koh. One hour later, Abarca shot and killed Koh. He also injured Arnold and Lina Amparado, who were in the adjacent room. The court held that (1) Abarca was not liable for murdering Koh under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, as he killed Koh in the act of catching his wife; and (2) Abarca was liable for physical injuries through negligence for injuring the Amparados, but not for frustrated murder, as he did not intend to kill them.

Uploaded by

Daniela Sandra Agoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
270 views2 pages

PEOPLE v. ABARCA

The accused Francisco Abarca caught his wife Jenney having sexual intercourse with her paramour Kingsley Koh. One hour later, Abarca shot and killed Koh. He also injured Arnold and Lina Amparado, who were in the adjacent room. The court held that (1) Abarca was not liable for murdering Koh under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, as he killed Koh in the act of catching his wife; and (2) Abarca was liable for physical injuries through negligence for injuring the Amparados, but not for frustrated murder, as he did not intend to kill them.

Uploaded by

Daniela Sandra Agoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE v.

ABARCA

FACTS:

 On July 15, 1984, the accused Francisco Abarca, caught his wife,
Jenney, and Khingsley Koh, her wife’s paramour, having sexual
intercourse inside the Abarca residence. When the wife and Koh
noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his
revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet
in their room jumped and ran away.
 The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. He went to the
house of a PC soldier, C2C Arturo Talbo, and got Talbo’s firearm, an M-
16 rifle, and went back to his house at V & G Subdivision. He was not
able to find his wife and Koh there. He proceeded to the "mahjong
session" as it was the "hangout" of Kingsley Koh. The accused
found Koh playing mahjong. He fired at Kingsley Koh three times with
his rifle. Koh was hit. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a
room adjacent to the room where Koh was playing mahjong were also
hit by the shots fired by the accused. Kingsley Kho died
instantaneously of cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of multiple gunshot wounds on the head, trunk
and abdomen (pp. 28-29, tsn, Sept. 24, 1984; see also exh. A):
Arnold Amparado was hospitalized and operated on in the kidney to
remove a bullet (pp. 17-23 tsn, Oct. 17, 1984; see also exh. C). His
wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in, the hospital as she was hit by
bullet fragments (p. 23, tsn. id.).
 Abarca was charged with the complex crime of murder with frustrated
double murder. Eventually after trial, Abarca was found guilty as
charged.

ISSUE:
1. WON Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code defining death inflicted und
erexceptional circumstances can be applied in the instant case
dissolving the criminal liability of the accused for the murder of Koh,
the paramour of his wife.

2. Whether or not the accused is liable for frustrated
murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados.

HELD:

1. YES. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article 247 of the Revised


Penal Code which provides:
“Any legally married person who, having surprised his
spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any 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.”
Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally
married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of them or
both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are
present in this case.

Even though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca
caught his wife with Koh and the time he killed Koh, the killing was still
the direct by-product of Abarca’s rage. Therefore, Abarca is not liable
for the death of Koh.

2. NO. Abarca is still liable for the injuries he caused to the two other
persons he shot in the adjacent room but his liability shall not be for
frustrated murder. In the first place, Abarca has no intent to kill the
other two persons injured. He was not also committing a crime when
he was firing his gun at Koh – it being under Art. 247. Abarca was
however negligent because he did not exercise all precaution to make
sure no one else will be hurt. As such, he shall be liable for less serious
physical injuries through simple negligence for the injuries suffered by
the two other persons who were in the adjacent room when the
incident happened.

You might also like