by her brother, Quirino Ragub, who was then residing in Canada.

DELFIN
Angeles testified that at around 1:20 in the morning of February 12,
2003, she, her children Catherine, Jessica, Auria and Arvin were
[ G.R. No. 211062, January 13, 2016 ] walking home after playing bingo at a local peryahan. Some friends
tagged along with them so that they could all feast on the leftover
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, food prepared for the fiesta that was celebrated the previous day.
Along the way, Angeles and her group met Auria's husband, the
accused appellant. The latter joined them in walking back to their
VS. house.

MANUEL MACAL Y BOLASCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. When they arrived at the house, the group proceeded to the living
room except for Auria and the accused-appellant who went straight
DECISION to their bedroom, about four (4) meters away from the living room.
Shortly thereafter, Angeles heard her daughter Auria shouting,
"mother help me I am going to be killed."[6] Upon hearing Auria's plea
PEREZ, J.:
for help, Angeles and the rest of her companions raced towards the
Violence between husband and wife is nothing new. Marital violence bedroom but they found the door of the room locked. Arvin kicked
that leads to spousal killing is parricide. Perceived as a horrific kind open the door of the bedroom and there they all saw a bloodied
of killing, penal laws impose a harsher penalty on persons found Auria on one side of the room. Next to Auria was the accused-
guilty of parricide compared to those who commit the felony of appellant who was then trying to stab himself with the use of an
homicide. improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle). Auria was immediately
taken to a hospital, on board a vehicle owned by a neighbor, but
For review is the June 28, 2013 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals was pronounced dead on arrival. Angeles declared that the accused-
(CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR H.C. No. 01209 which affirmed with appellant jumped over the fence and managed to escape before the
modification the August 18, 2009 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial policemen could reach the crime scene.
Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 6, convicting Manuel Macal y
Bolasco (accused-appellant) of the crime of parricide and sentencing Erwin corroborated Angeles' testimony that Auria was killed by the
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. accused-appellant. Erwin claimed that he was part of the group that
went to Angeles' residence on that fateful morning. From where he
was seated in the living room, Erwin recounted that he heard Auria's
The Facts screaming for her mother's help. The cry for help prompted him to
ran towards the bedroom. Once the door was forcibly opened,
For allegedly killing his spouse, Auria Ytac Macal (Auria), the Erwin became aware that the accused-appellant stabbed Auria on
accused-appellant was charged with the crime of parricide in a the upper left portion of her chest with a stainless knife. Erwin
February 13, 2003 Information[3] that reads: testified that the accused-appellant stabbed himself on the chest
with a knife-like belt buckle and that soon after, the accused-
"That on or about the 12th day of February, 2003, in the City of appellant hurriedly left the house.
Tacloban, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, MANUEL MACAL y BOLASO, did, The prosecution formally offered in evidence the Certificate of
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with evident Death wherein it is indicated that Auria died of hemorrhagic shock
premeditation, that is, having conceived and deliberated to kill his secondary to stab wound.[7]
wife, AURIA MACAL y YTAC, with whom he was united in lawful
wedlock, armed with an improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle) Version of the Defense
and a kitchen knife, stab said Auria Macal on the front portion of her
body inflicting a fatal wound which caused her death, which incident To substantiate its version of the fact, the defense called to the
happened inside the bedroom of the house they are residing. witness stand the accused-appellant, Benito Billota (Benito) and
Nerissa Alcantara (Nerissa).
CONTRARY TO LAW."
On July 7, 2003, upon arraignment, the accused-appellant, duly The accused-appellant did not refute the factual allegations of the
assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge of prosecution that he stabbed his wife, resulting in the latter's death,
parricide.[4]During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to but seeks exoneration from criminal liability by interposing the
stipulate that Auria was the wife of the accused- defense that the stabbing was accidental and not intentional.
appellant.[5] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The accused-appellant admitted that he was married to Auria in
Version of the Prosecution March 2000 and the wedding was held in Manila. The couple had
two children but one of them died. According to the accused-
To prove the accusation, the prosecution presented Angeles Ytac appellant, he was employed as a security guard by Fighter Wing
(Angeles) and Erwin Silvano (Erwin) as witnesses. Security Agency which was based in Manila. While the accused-
appellant was working in Manila, his family lived with Angeles in
Angeles, the mother of Auria, narrated that Auria and the accused- Tacloban City. The accused-appellant came home only once a year to
appellant got married in March 2000 and that out of their union, his family in Tacloban City.
they begot two (2) children. Angeles claimed that, at the time of the
incident, they were all living together in a house located in V & G On February 12, 2003, the accused-appellant arrived home in V & G
Subdivision, Tacloban City. The said house was entrusted to Angeles Subdivision, Tacloban City from Manila. Before the accused-
appellant could reach the bedroom, he was warned by Arvin, his killed. The RTC also refused to believe accused-appellant's claim that
brother-in-law, not to go inside the bedroom where his wife was there was a man with Auria inside the bedroom. Logic dictates that
with a man for he might be killed. Ignoring Arvin's admonition, the a man in that situation would normally run away the first
accused-appellant kicked the door but it was opened from the opportunity he had specifically when the accused-appellant stepped
inside. After the bedroom door was opened, the accused-appellant out of the bedroom to obtain a knife. The RTC even went further by
saw his wife and a man seated beside each other conversing. saying that the accused-appellant injured himself so that he can later
Furious by what he had seen, the accused-appellant went out of the on invoke self-defense which he failed to do as there are witnesses
room, got a knife and delivered a stab blow towards the man but who can easily disprove his theory of self-defense.
the latter was shielded by Auria. In the process, the stab blow
landed on Auria. After Auria was accidentally stabbed, the man ran
outside and fled. The accused-appellant testified that out of The CA's Ruling
frustration for not killing the man, he wounded himself on the chest.
He then left the house and went to Eastern Visayas Regional Medical On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC decision.
Center (EVRMC) for medical treatment. The fallo of the CA decision states:

Benito attested that he came to know the accused-appellant while IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby AFFIRMS with
they were seated next to each other on board a Christopher Bus MODIFICATION the assailed Decision dated August 18, 2009, of the
bound for Tacloban City. The bus they were riding reached Tacloban Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City in Criminal Case No.
City past midnight of February 12, 2003. Considering the lateness of 2003-02-92. Accused-Appellant MANUEL MACAL y BOLASCO is
the hour and there was no bus available that would take Benito to found GUILTY of parricide committed against his legal wife, Auria
his final destination, the accused-appellant convinced Benito to Ytac Macal, on February 12, 2003 and is sentenced to suffer the
simply go home with him. Once they got home, the accused- penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs
appellant went inside the house while Benito opted to stay by the of Auria Ytac Macal the amounts of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
main door. The accused-appellant asked someone from the living Php50,000.00 as moral damages, Php25,000.00 as temperate
room the whereabouts of his wife, Auria. Benito testified that a damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary
female informed the accused-appellant that Auria was inside the awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six
bedroom but advised him not to go in as Auria was not alone in the percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until
room. Undettered, the accused-appellant proceeded to the fully paid.
bedroom and was able to get inside the room. Moments later,
Benito heard a thudding sound coming from the bedroom. Then, SO ORDERED.[10]
Benito saw a man running out of the house. Sensing trouble, Benito The appellate court ruled that all the elements of parricide are
immediately proceeded to the bus terminal. present in this case. Moreover, the CA reasoned out that while
Angeles did not actually see the accused-appellant stab Auria, the
To support the accused-appellant's claim that he brought himself to prosecution adduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain
a hospital on February 12, 2003, Nerissa, the Administrative his conviction. From the viewpoint of the CA, the prosecution's case
Officer/OIC Records Officer of EVRMC, was presented as witness for against the accused-appellant was strengthened by the latter's own
the defense. Her testimony focused on the existence of the medical testimony and admission that he stabbed his wife. The CA further
record concerning the examination conducted on the accused- held that neither can the act of the accused-appellant be covered
appellant by a physician at EVRMC. Per hospital record, Nerissa under the exempting circumstance of accident under Article
confirmed that the accused-appellant sustained a three-centimeter 12(4)[11] of the Revised Penal Code nor under absolutory cause found
wound located at the left parasternal, level of the 5th ICS non- in Article 247[12] of the same Code.
penetrating and another lacerated wound in the left anterior
chest.[8] Hence, this appeal.

The RTC's Ruling The Issue

The RTC convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of parricide The principal issue before the Court is whether the court a quo erred
and the dispositive portion of its judgment reads: in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of parricide.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this Court
finds accused MANUEL MACAL y BOLASCO guilty beyond In the resolution of March 10, 2014, the Court required the parties to
reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, and sentences him to submit their respective supplemental briefs within thirty (30) days
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to pay from notice. However, both parties manifested that they will no
the heirs of the victim, Aurea Ytac Macal, P50,000.00 as civil longer file the required briefs as they had already exhaustively and
indemnity, and P50,000.00 for moral damages. And, to pay the extensively discussed all the matters and issues of this case in the
Costs. briefs earlier submitted with the CA.

SO ORDERED.[9]
The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution The Court's Ruling
witnesses. In contrast, the RTC found accused-appellant's
declarations doubtful and contrary to human experience and The Court affirms the conviction of the accused-appellant with
reason. The RTC was not persuaded by the accused-appellant's modifications.
argument that the stabbing incident was purely accidental after it
took into account Auria's terrifying wail that she was going to be All the Essential Elements of Parricide Duly Established and Proven by
the Prosecution happen to your wife then?
A: She died.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased Q: How about you, what happened to you after you yourself?
is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or A: I left the place.[19]
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other The outright admission of the accused-appellant in open court that
ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the he delivered the fatal stabbing blow that ended Auria's life
accused.[13] established his culpability.

Among the three requisites, the relationship between the offender Clearly, all the elements of the crime of parricide as defined in Article
and the victim is the most crucial.[14] This relationship is what 246 of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case.
actually distinguishes the crime of parricide from homicide.[15] In
parricide involving spouses, the best proof of the relationship Affirmative Defense of Accident as an Exempting Circumstance Must
between the offender and victim is their marriage certificate.[16] Oral Fail
evidence may also be considered in proving the relationship
between the two as long as such proof is not contested.[17] The defense invoked Article 12 paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code to release the accused-appellant from criminal liability.
In this case, the spousal relationship between Auria and the Pursuant to said provision, the essential requisites of accident as an
accused-appellant is beyond dispute. As previously stated, the exempting circumstance are: (1) a person is performing a lawful act;
defense already admitted that Auria was the legitimate wife of the (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere
accused-appellant during the pre-trial conference. Such admission accident; and (4) without fault or intention of causing it.[20]
was even reiterated by the accused-appellant in the course of trial of
the case. Nevertheless, the prosecution produced a copy of the A close scrutiny of the transcripts of stenographic notes would
couple's marriage certificate which the defense admitted to be a reveal that the accused-appellant was not performing a lawful act at
genuine and faithful reproduction of the original.[18] Hence, the key the time Auria was stabbed. This can be gathered from the narration
element that qualifies the killing to parricide was satisfactorily of the accused-appellant during cross-examination conducted by
demonstrated in this case. Prosecutor Percival Dolina:

Just like the marital relationship between Auria and the accused- xxxx
appellant, the fact of Auria's death is incontestable. Witnesses, from Now, of course, when you saw the man and your wife, according
Q:
both the prosecution and defense, were in agreement that Auria to you, they were just conversing with each other, correct?
expired on February 12, 2003. As additional proof of her demise, the A: Yes, sir.
prosecution presented Auria's Certificate of Death which was Q: How far where they to each other?
admitted by the RTC and the defense did not object to its A: They were beside each other.
admissibility. Q: They were sitting?
A: Yes, sir, both were sitting.
Anent the remaining element, there is no doubt that Auria was killed Q: Of course, when you saw them, you got angry?
by the accused-appellant. The stabbing incident was acknowledged A: I became angry.
by the accused-appellant himself during his direct examination by Q: That is why you got a knife and stabbed the man?
defense counsel Emelinda Maquilan, to wit: A: Yes, sir.
xxxx And when you stabbed the man, you had the intention to kill
Q:
Q: What is the name of your wife? him?
A: Aurea Ytac. A: Yes, my intention was to kill him.
You said you saw your wife in your room with a man. Now, what Q: But it was your wife who was hit?
Q: was the man doing when you saw this man together with your A: My wife was the one hit.[21]
wife? The defense of accident presupposes lack of intention to kill.[22] This
A: They were conversing. certainly does not hold true in the instant case based on the
Q: They were conversing in what part of your room? aforequoted testimony of the accused-appellant. Moreover, the
A: At one side of the room. prosecution witnesses, who were then within hearing distance from
Q: So, what did you do upon seeing the man, if there was any? the bedroom, testified that they distinctly heard Auria screaming
A: Because of my anger, I stabbed the man. that she was going to be killed by the accused-appellant.
Q: Were you able to hit the man?
A: No, because my wife shielded him. Given these testimonies, the accused-appellant's defense of
Q: Since your wife shielded the man, what happened to your wife? accident is negated as he was carrying out an unlawful act at the
A: My wife got hit. time of the incident.
Q: Now, in what of the body of his wife was hit?
I cannot exactly tell where she was hit but he delivered a It also bears stressing that in raising the defense of accident, the
A:
stabbing blow at the man. accused-appellant had the inescapable burden of proving, by clear
So, after your wife was hit by the stabbing blow to be directed to and convincing evidence, of accidental infliction of injuries on the
Q:
the man, what happened next? victim.[23] In so doing, the accused-appellant had to rely on the
Out of desperation because I was not able to kill the man, I strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
A:
wounded myself. prosecution's evidence.[24] As aptly pointed out by the CA, the
How about the man whom you wanted to stab, what happened defense failed to discharge the burden of proving the elements of
Q:
to him? the exempting circumstance of accident that would otherwise free
A: He ran. the accused-appellant from culpability. Aside from the accused-
Q: Since you said your wife was hit by that stabbing blow, what appellant's self-serving statement, no other proof was adduced that
will substantiate his defense of accidental stabbing. that account, the Court must also adjust the moral damages from
P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.
Further, contrary to what the accused-appellant wants the Court to
believe, his actuations closely after Auria was stabbed tell a different Given that this is a case of a husband killing his wife where
story. If Auria was really accidentally stabbed by him, the accused- relationship a qualifying circumstance, the award of exemplary
appellant's natural reaction would have been to take the lead in damages is justified. The exemplary damages of P30,000.00
bringing his wife to a hospital. Instead, his priority was to come up awarded by the CA is maintained as it is consistent with the latest
with an improvised bladed weapon that he could use to hurt rulings of the Court.
himself. Additionally, the fact that the accused-appellant ran away
from the crime scene leaving Auria's relatives and neighbors to tend Temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary loss
to his dying wife is indicative of his guilt. has been suffered but definite proof of its amount was not
presented in court.[30] In People v. De Leon,[31] the Court awarded
The CA took one step further when it examined the applicability of P25,000.00 as temperate damages where the expenses for the
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code in this case. For this purpose, funeral cannot be determined with certainty because of the absence
the CA assumed arguendo that there is another man inside the of receipts to prove them. In keeping with the said ruling, the Court
bedroom with Auria. affirms the CA's award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages.

Article 247 is an absolutory cause that recognizes the commission of On a final note, the Court upholds the imposition of interest at the
a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no legal rate of 6% per annum on all the monetary awards for damages
penalty imposed.[25] The defense must prove the concurrence of the reckoned from the date of finality of this Decision until fully
following elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his paid.[32] This is in accordance with the Court's discretionary authority
spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another to levy interest as part of the damages and in conformity with the
person; (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or latest Court policy on the matter.
immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not promoted or
facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she WHEREFORE, the CA's decision dated June 28, 2013 in CA-G.R. CEB-
has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.[26] Among CR H.C. No. 01209, finding accused-appellant, Manuel Macal y
the three elements, the most vital is that the accused-appellant Bolasco, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, is
must prove to the court that he killed his wife and her paramour in hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is
the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.[27] sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the
heirs of the victim, Auria Ytac Macal, the amounts of P75,000.00 as
Having admitted the stabbing, the burden of proof is shifted to the civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as
defense to show the applicability of Article 247.[28] As disclosed by exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. In
the accused-appellant, when he saw Auria with a man, the two were addition, all the monetary awards shall earn an interest at the legal
just seated beside each other and were simply talking. Evidently, the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until
absolutory cause embodied in Article 247 is not applicable in the fully paid.
present case.
SO ORDERED.
In sum, the Court agrees with the trial and appellate courts that the
evidence of the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused-
appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Penalty and Pecuniary Liability

Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the imposable
penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. With the
enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346), the imposition of
the penalty of death is prohibited. Likewise significant is the
provision found in Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code stating that
in the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.
Applying these to the case at bar and considering that there are no
mitigating and aggravating circumstances present, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed by the RTC and CA.

Civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the fact of

There is no question that Auria's heirs suffered mental anguish by