G.R. No.

L-32792 February 2, 1979

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
DIONISIO BASTASA @ DIONY and VIRGINIA DUGENIA BASTASA @ VIRGIE, defendants.
DIONISIO BASTASA alias "DIONY"; defendant-appellant.

Case: Spouses Dionisio and Virginia charged with MURDER for killing Atty. Solomon.
Facts: On his way home, at around 9:00pm, Dionisio saw the jeep of Atty. Solomon parked
near his house. Inside his house, he passed through the secret passage to avoid disturbing
the sleep of his wife and children. He saw a jacket and a .45 caliber on top of the table
located in their sala.
Believing that somebody was inside their bedroom, he took the pistol. He climbed the ladder
to see who was inside. He saw Atty. Solomon and his wife having sexual intercourse. His feet
slipped from the ladder which created some noise. Immediately Atty. Solomon stood up. He
shot Atty. Solomon four times. Again, he fired 3 more shots at the deceased, who ran to the
kitchen.
Then he climbed down the ladder to pursue Atty. Solomon. He heard a sound as if a body
crashed against the plywood board. He saw the plywood board fall down with the deceased.
Again, he shot the deceased 2 more times.
He turned over the body of the deceased which was then lying face downward. He removed
the trousers of the deceased with the intention of cutting his penis but desisted when he
heard the sound of an approaching jeep. Immediately, he left the house and placed the
pistol on the stomach of the deceased and went to the PC Headquarters and surrendered.

Decision of Trial Court: The Court, declaring that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt the GUILT of accused DIONISIO of the crime of murder in the character of
principal with the concurrence of evident premeditation, which, however, is offset by his
voluntary surrender.
That accused VIRGINIA, was only accessory under par. 3 of Art. 19 of the RPC for which
reason, as spouse of said accused Dionisio, she is exempt from any criminal liability,
Hereby sentences accused Dionisio
accessories of the law, to INDEMNIFY
without subsidiary imprisonment in
damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary

to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the

the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.00,
case of insolvency, to pay P10,000.00 as moral
damages, and to pay 1/2 of the costs,

Issues/Decision of Supreme Court:

Issue No. 1: Whether the trial court erred in not applying the provisions of Art. 247 of the
RPC in the imposition of the penalty.
Decision of Supreme Court: We agree with the conclusion of Sol. Gen that the appellant
killed the deceased while in the act of committing sexual intercourse with the appellant's
wife. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of destierro as provided
for by the 1st par of Art. 247 of the RPC.

Issue No. 2: Whether the benefit of Art. 29 can be extended to the appellant, considering
that the penalty imposable on him is Destierro.
Decision of Supreme Court: The appellant has been under preventive imprisonment for
almost 12 years. Considering that the penalty of destierro has a duration of 6 months and
one day to 6 years, it appears that appellant has more than served the full duration of the
penalty imposable on him pursuant to Art. 29 of the RPC:
ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment. Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment
shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment.
The penalty of destierro, according to this Court in Uy Chin Hua v. Dinglasar; means
prohibition from residing within the radius of 25 km from the actual residence of the
accused. Although destierro does not constitute imprisonment, it is nonetheless a
deprivation of liberty.
Judgment is MODIFIED holding the appellant Dionisio guilty of the crime of killing the victim,
hereby sentence to suffer the penalty of destierro. Considering the preventive imprisonment
that he has undergone, he is hereby ordered released immediately from custody.