View full case

PEOPLE v. JIMMY TALISIC Y VILLAMOR

FACTS:

The accused-appellant admits to killing his wife but claims that he did so after catching her in the act of sexual intercourse with another man. However, he is unable to provide sufficient evidence to support his defense. The accused was charged with parricide and found guilty by the Regional Trial Court, which sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing that he killed his wife under exceptional circumstances as provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The issue in this appeal is whether the evidence justifies the application of Article 247. The prosecution presented testimonies from witnesses who found the victim's lifeless body and described the numerous stab wounds inflicted on her. The defense presented the testimony of the accused, who claimed to have seen another man on top of his wife when he returned home, and that he stabbed the man in self-defense before his wife attacked him with a chisel.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the applicability of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. Whether the accused's account of catching his wife in flagrante delicto is credible.

  3. Whether the accused's subsequent actions and claims are plausible.

  4. Whether Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to the case.

  5. Whether the appellant caught his wife with another man in flagrante delicto.

RULING:

  1. No, the accused-appellant is not entitled to the applicability of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The burden of proof to show the concurrence of all three elements of Article 247 rests on the defense. The accused-appellant failed to prove that he caught his wife in flagrante delicto and that he killed her while she was in the act of voluntary sexual intercourse with another man or immediately thereafter. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

  2. The court found that the accused's account of catching his wife in flagrante delicto and the subsequent events are not credible. The accused's version of events is highly implausible and inconsistent. Therefore, his claims cannot be believed.

  3. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code is inapplicable to the case as the appellant failed to prove the essential requirement of having caught his wife and her alleged paramour in flagrante delicto.

  4. The records of the case support the trial court's conclusion that the appellant did not catch his wife with another man. The appellant's deep-seated suspicion of his wife's infidelity, combined with his temper and resentment, could explain why he killed her. The appellant's own testimony does not convince the court that he caught his wife in the act of adultery or that such a man was present in their house.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Evidence, to be believed, must not only come from a credible witness but must also be credible in itself.

  • Testimony that is repugnant to the common experience of mankind cannot be considered credible.

  • The court must assess the plausibility and consistency of a witness's testimony to determine its credibility.

  • Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable when a person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person and immediately kills or inflicts serious physical injuries upon the latter.

  • To invoke Article 247, the accused must prove the following essential elements: a) the accused surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; b) the accused killed or inflicted serious physical injuries upon the other person or both of them; and c) the accused acted under the impulse of uncontrollable jealousy.