Art. 246. Parricide. Old Case: People of The Philippines vs. Pilus Subano Gr. No L-48143, September 30, 1942 Facts

DELFIN, JENNICA GYRL G. he saw his wife conversing with a man inside their bedroom.
March 8, 2018 The Regional Trial Court convicted Manuel of the crime of
Art. 246. Parricide. Parricide and held that they were not convinced that the
OLD CASE: stabbing incident was purely accidental. On appeal, the
People of the Philippines vs. Pilus Subano Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Gr. No L-48143, September 30, 1942 Issue:
Facts: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
Pilus Subano had a quarrel with his wife, Bankalot, when finding the accused guilty of the crime of parricide.
the latter refused to work in their kaingin. Their quarrel 2. Whether or not the proper penalty is reclusion
resumed the following day when Bankalot refused to perpetua.
accompany Pilus to Macasin River to catch fish. Bankalot’s Held:
father, Ebol and father of Pilus’ other wife, Biwang, noticed 1. No. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is
that he went home alone that day and that there were killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3)
bloodstains on his bolo and on its scabbard. Pilus explained the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
that the bloodstains were from the fish he had just cut. Ebol legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
asked Pilus where his daughter was but the latter disclaimed ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate
any knowledge of her. Four days later, Bankalot’s body was spouse of the accused. Among the three requisites,
found in the middle of Macasin River. The incident was the relationship between the offender and the victim
reported to Lieutenant Olivares to whom the case was is the most crucial. This relationship is what
reported. During trial, Pilus denied killing his wife. actually distinguishes the crime of parricide from
Issue: Whether or not Pilus Subano is guilty of parricide. homicide. In parricide involving spouses, the best
Held: proof of the relationship between the offender and
No. The facts duly established that Pilus is the author of the victim is their marriage certificate. Oral evidence
crime but what he committed was homicide and not may also be considered in proving the relationship
parricide. From the testimony of Ebol, father of the between the two as long as such proof is not
deceased, it appears that the defendant has three wives and contested. In this case, the spousal relationship
that the deceased was the last in point of time. Although the between Auria and the accused-appellant is beyond
practice of polygamy is approved by custom among these dispute. As previously stated, the defense already
non-Christians, polygamy, however, is not sactioned by the admitted that Auria was the legitimate wife of the
Marriage Law which merely recognizes tribal marriage accused-appellant during the pre-trial conference.
rituals. The deceased, under our law, is not thus the lawful Such admission was even reiterated by the accused-
wife of the defendant and this precludes conviction for the appellant in the course of trial of the case.
crime of parricide. Nevertheless, the prosecution produced a copy of
the couple's marriage certificate which the defense
New Case admitted to be a genuine and faithful reproduction
People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Macal y Bolasco of the original.
G.R. No. 211062, January 13, 2016 2. Yes. Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code
Facts: provides that the imposable penalty for parricide is
Manuel and Auria Macal are married and begot 2 children. reclusion perpetua to death. With the enactment of
Auria’s mother, Angeles, claimed that they were all living Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346), the imposition
together in Tacloban. Angeles testified that she was of the penalty of death is prohibited. Likewise
walking home with her children, including Auria after significant is the provision found in Article 63 of
playing bingo at a local peryahan. Along the way, with some the Revised Penal Code stating that in the absence
of their friends, their group met Manuel who joined them in of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the
walking back in their house. When they arrived, the group commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be
proceeded to the living room except for Auria and Manuel imposed. Applying these to the case at bar and
who went straight to their bedroom. Shortly thereafter, considering that there are no mitigating and
Angeles heard her daughter screaming for help. They aggravating circumstances present, the penalty of
immediately tried opening the locked door. When it was reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed by the
opened, they saw a bloodied Auria on one side of the room. RTC and CA.
Next to her was Manuel, who was trying to stab himself
with the use of an improvised weapon. Auria was
immediately taken to the hospital but was pronounced dead
on arrival. On the other hand, Manuel, managed to escape
before the police could reach the crime scene. In his
defense, Manuel claimed that he did stabbed his wife but it
was not intentional. He only did that out of anger because

Art. 246. Parricide. Old Case: People of The Philippines vs. Pilus Subano Gr. No L-48143, September 30, 1942 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art. 246. Parricide. Old Case: People of The Philippines vs. Pilus Subano Gr. No L-48143, September 30, 1942 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art. 246. Parricide. Old Case: People of The Philippines vs. Pilus Subano Gr. No L-48143, September 30, 1942 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DELFIN, JENNICA GYRL G. he saw his wife conversing with a man inside their bedroom.

You might also like