Description

ART. 246. Parricide.—Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

++++++++++++

[2015] Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife Bionci in bed making love to another woman Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died.

(A) What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance attended the case? Explain. (3%)

A – Answer:
Procopio committed parricide, attended by the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide is committed when a person kills his or her spouse. Article 13(6) provides that passion and obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance when the offender acts upon an impulse so powerful as to naturally produce loss of reason and self-control.

Procopio killed Bionci, who is his wife, thereby fulfilling the elements of parricide. However, he discovered her in the act of sexual infidelity, which provoked an immediate and intense emotional reaction. This constitutes passion and obfuscation, as the killing was done in the heat of overwhelming anger and shock.

Thus, Procopio is liable for parricide, mitigated by passion and obfuscation.

(B) Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-taw spouses, will your answer be the same? Explain. (2%)

A – Answer:
No, the answer will not be the same. Procopio would be liable for homicide, still attended by the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the victim be a legitimate spouse. In the absence of a valid marriage, the killing falls under homicide (Article 249). Passion and obfuscation under Article 13(6) remains applicable if the unlawful act was committed under an impulse arising from a lawful or sufficient cause.

Since Procopio and Bionci are only common-law spouses, the element of a valid marriage is absent; hence, parricide cannot be committed. The killing is therefore classified as homicide. Nonetheless, the discovery of infidelity still constitutes a sufficient cause to produce passion and obfuscation.

Thus, Procopio is liable for homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

****************

1999 No XVI. Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%)

A – Answer:
The crime of parricide may be committed by any person who kills his or her father, mother, child (legitimate or illegitimate), or any of his or her ascendants or descendants, or spouse.

Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code provides that parricide is committed by a person who kills (1) his or her father, mother, or child (whether legitimate or illegitimate), (2) any other legitimate ascendant or descendant, or (3) his or her spouse.

Thus, the offender must have a specific familial relationship with the victim, such as parent, child, ascendant, descendant, or lawful spouse. The existence of this relationship qualifies the killing as parricide instead of homicide or murder.

Therefore, any person who kills a close family member within the relationships specified by law (including a lawful spouse) may be guilty of parricide.

************

1999: A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes did A commit?

A – Answer:
A committed:
(1) Homicide for killing the woman (common-law partner);
(2) Parricide for killing their two-day-old child;
(3) Parricide for killing their daughter; and
(4) Homicide for killing the adopted son.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide is committed when a person kills his or her father, mother, or child (legitimate or illegitimate), or any legitimate ascendant or descendant, or spouse.
If the relationship does not fall within those specified, the crime is homicide (Art. 249).

(1) The woman is only a common-law partner, not a lawful spouse → homicide.
(2) The two-day-old child is A’s child (even if illegitimate) → parricide.
(3) The daughter is also A’s child → parricide.
(4) The adopted son is not included among those enumerated in parricide (no blood relation under RPC interpretation) → homicide.

A is liable for two counts of parricide (for the children) and two counts of homicide (for the common-law partner and the adopted son).

************

1997 No. 17: A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C. her husband, to whom she was lawfully married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food with poison to C, but before C could eat it. D, her illegitimate lather, and E, her legitimate son, arrived. C. D and E shared the food in the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C, D and E died because of having partaken of the poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A and B commit?

A – Answer:

A and B are liable for:

Parricide for the death of C;
Murder (qualified by treachery/poison) for the deaths of D and E.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide is committed when a person kills his or her spouse.
Article 248 provides that murder is committed when a person kills another with any of the qualifying circumstances, such as poison.
The use of poison qualifies the killing to murder regardless of the relationship, unless the victim falls under parricide.

A and B conspired to kill C, A’s lawful husband, by poisoning food. Thus, the killing of C constitutes parricide.

As to D (A’s illegitimate father) and E (A’s legitimate son), although they were not the intended victims, A knowingly allowed them to eat the poisoned food without warning them. The use of poison qualifies the killings as murder. Conspiracy makes both A and B equally liable for all the deaths resulting from their criminal design.

Thus, A and B are liable for one count of parricide (for C) and two counts of murder (for D and E).

************

1996 No. 16. In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who was then only three years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his friends, upon the other, without the father and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week later, when his mother arrived from Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he killed was his own father.

1) What crime did Ricky commit? Explain.

A – Answer:
Ricky committed parricide, but he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code defines parricide as the killing of one’s father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Under Article 13(3), lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is a mitigating circumstance when the offender did not intend the serious consequence of his act.

Ricky killed Pedro, who is in fact his father. The law considers only the relationship and the act of killing, not the offender’s knowledge of such relationship, in determining parricide. Hence, the crime is still parricide.

However, Ricky had no knowledge that Pedro was his father at the time of the killing. Thus, while he intended to stab Pedro, he did not intend to kill his own father, which is a graver wrong. This justifies the mitigating circumstance.

Ricky is liable for parricide, with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

2) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but he nevertheless killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother, what crime did Ricky commit? Explain.

A – Answer:
Ricky committed parricide, with no mitigating circumstance.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide is committed when a person kills his or her father, mother, or child.
For mitigating circumstances, Article 13 requires that there be sufficient basis such as lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong or passion and obfuscation arising from a lawful or sufficient cause.

Ricky knew that Pedro was his father when he killed him; thus, the essential element of relationship is present, making the crime parricide.

The killing was motivated by long-standing resentment due to abandonment. However, this does not constitute passion and obfuscation, since the act was not the result of an immediate impulse but of a prolonged grudge. Neither can lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

************

|1994 No. 7: Aldrich was dismissed from his Job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died. What crime was committed by Aldrich?

A – Answer:
Aldrich committed parricide, with respect to the death of his wife, and the death of the unborn child is absorbed in the crime of parricide.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide is committed when a person kills his or her spouse.
In cases where a pregnant woman is killed, the death of the fetus is generally not treated as a separate crime if it is the direct consequence of the same act that caused the mother’s death.

Aldrich struck his lawful wife, Carmi, causing her death. This constitutes parricide. The death of the unborn child resulted from the same violent act inflicted upon the mother and is not treated as a separate offense.

Thus, Aldrich is liable for parricide, and the death of the unborn child is absorbed therein.

************

|1982 No. 16. “A”, a prominent and high official, had illicit relationship with “B”, a girl very much below his social standing. A child was born to them as a result thereof. “A” killed the child, over three days old, so as to conceal his dishonor. What crime did’”A” commit?

A – Answer:
A committed parricide.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide is committed when a person kills his or her child, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Infanticide (Art. 255) applies only when the child is less than three (3) days old, and concealment of dishonor may mitigate liability only within that period.

The child was already over three days old, hence the crime is no longer infanticide. Since the victim is A’s illegitimate child, the killing falls squarely under parricide, regardless of the motive to conceal dishonor.

Therefore, A is liable for parricide.

************

A – Answer:
A committed parricide.

Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code provides that parricide is committed by a person who kills his or her child, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Article 255 (infanticide) applies only if the child is less than three (3) days old, and the mitigating circumstance of concealment of dishonor is relevant only within that period.

Here, the child is already over three days old, so the killing cannot be classified as infanticide. Since the child is A’s own (illegitimate) child, the killing falls under parricide, regardless of the intent to conceal dishonor.

Thus, A is liable for parricide.

How would you answer if the child were less than three days old?

A – Answer:
If the child were less than three (3) days old, A would be liable for infanticide, with the mitigating circumstance of concealment of dishonor.

Article 255 of the Revised Penal Code defines infanticide as the killing of a child less than three days old. It further provides that if the crime is committed by the mother or maternal grandparents to conceal dishonor, the penalty is mitigated. Jurisprudence extends the benefit of this mitigating circumstance to the father under similar circumstances.

\Since the child is less than three days old, the killing falls under infanticide, not parricide. A killed the child specifically to conceal his dishonor arising from an illicit relationship, which entitles him to the mitigating circumstance.

Thus, A is liable for infanticide, mitigated by concealment of dishonor.

************

|1978 No, VI-a. Juana was charged with parricide, i.e., poisoning her husband Justo with whom she had seven (7) children, the eldest, 21 years old and the youngest, eleven (11). The act of poisoning was proven beyond reasonable doubt, but the prosecution failed to present the marriage certificate to prove Juana’s marriage to Justo, The trial judge rendered a judgment of conviction. Juana appealed on the ground that the marriage was not proven. Decide with reasons.

A – Answer:
Juana should not be convicted of parricide, but only of homicide.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, parricide requires proof that the victim is the lawful spouse of the offender. The marital relationship must be proven by competent evidence, such as a marriage certificate. Absent such proof, the qualifying relationship cannot be appreciated, and the crime falls under homicide (Art. 249).

Although the killing by poisoning was proven beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution failed to present the marriage certificate or any competent proof of a valid marriage between Juana and Justo. The mere existence of children or cohabitation does not conclusively establish a lawful marriage. Hence, the essential element of relationship for parricide was not proven.

Therefore, Juana cannot be convicted of parricide, but only of homicide.