SC acquits woman charged with parricide
The Supreme Court has acquitted a woman accused of killing her husband after it found out the prosecution failed to completely rule out the possibility that the victim’s wound was self-inflicted.
In a 28-page decision promulgated on July 29 but made public only recently, the high tribunal’s Second Division granted the appeal of Gianne Carla Thanaraj, which challenged the appellate court’s affirmation of her conviction for parricide over the death of her husband, Mervin Roy Richard Thanaraj.
“The absence of malice on the part of accused-appellant to kill Mervin negates murder,” the Supreme Court said, noting that the wounds sustained by the victim would not really be accidental as he intended to kill himself.
The case dates back to April 5, 2017, when Jimar Moranta, who was working as a stay-in construction worker in a house situated beside the couple’s, testified that at 3:10 p.m., he heard Gianne yell, “Please help me, I stabbed my husband!”
Moranta said he noticed Mervin standing by the front door with his neck covered in blood. He immediately took off his jacket and urged his coworkers to use it to apply pressure on Mervin’s neck.
They then helped Mervin into the car of Gianne who drove him to the nearest hospital. Her husband, however, eventually died.
Along the way, Gianne allegedly told Moranta: “Kuya, I love my husband so much, I didn’t mean to stab him.”
Crime elements present
In its judgment, the Regional Trial Court found Gianne guilty of parricide, saying the prosecution proved the elements of the crime were all present and also established her guilt with proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Gianne’s conviction but raised the amount of damages to be paid to the victim’s heirs from P225,000 to P300,000.
According to the appellate court, the accused’s statement that she did not intend to stab Mervin did not absolve her of criminal liability as it was not just an extrajudicial confession but also a res gestae (Latin for things done, accomplished) statement that was admissible in evidence against her.
As for Gianne’s defense that Mervin’s stab wound was self-inflicted, the Court of Appeals did not consider this as Dr. Dominic Aguda, a medicolegal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation who conducted the autopsy, testified that the chances of it being one were low.
After a review of the records, the high tribunal said it was inclined to rule in favor of Gianne as the prosecution was unable to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Citing the autopsy report, the high court said Aguda had emphasized the stab wound did not appear to be self-inflicted.
However, his statements, according to the Supreme Court, were not conclusive proof of Gianne’s guilt.
“To this court’s mind, it merely establishes that there was a remote possibility for the wound to have been self-inflicted,” the high tribunal said in its decision on G.R. No. 262944 penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.
During the couple’s fight, the Supreme Court recalled that Gianne went upstairs to retrieve her car keys and get their second child.
Husband’s threat
At the time, she claimed that she wanted to leave the house to cool down but Mervin threatened to commit suicide should she do so.
“If at all, it was Mervin’s intention to kill himself should Gianne leave the house, while the intention of the accused was to leave their house,” the Supreme Court said.
“With this circumstance, it is necessary for the prosecution to exclude any possibility that the killing was done by a person other than accused-appellant and [with] the failure to do so, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that shall prevail,” it added.
