Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

FILOMENO URBANO, petitioner,

-versus-
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 72964 January 7, 1988
(157 SCRA 1)

FACTS:

October 23, 1980, 8:00 AM petitioner Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at Barangay Anonang, San Fabian,
Pangasinan located at about 100 meters from the tobacco seedbed of Marcelo Javier. He found the place where he stored his
palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which had overflowed. Urbano went to the elevated portion
of the canal to see what happened and there he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who was
responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano then got angry and
demanded that Javier pay for his soaked palay. A quarrel between them ensued. Urbano unsheathed his bolo and hacked
Javier hitting him on the right palm of his hand, which was used in parrying the bolo hack. Javier who was then unarmed ran
away from Urbano but was overtaken by Urbano who hacked him again hitting Javier on the left leg with the back portion of
said bolo, causing a swelling on said leg. When Urbano tried to hack and inflict further injury, his daughter embraced and
prevented him from hacking Javier.

Immediately thereafter, the Erfes brought Javier to his house about 50 meters away from where the incident
happened. Emilio then went to the house of Barangay Captain Menardo Soliven but not finding him there, Emilio looked for
barrio councilman Felipe Solis instead. Upon the advice of Solis, the Erfes together with Javier went to the police station of San
Fabian to report the incident. As suggested by Corporal Torio, Javier was brought to a physician. The group went to Dr.
Guillermo Padilla, rural health physician of San Fabian, who did not attend to Javier but instead suggested that they go to Dr.
Mario Meneses because Padilla had no available medicine. At about 1:30 a.m. on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the
Nazareth General Hospital in a very serious condition. When admitted to the hospital, Javier had lockjaw and was having
convulsions. Dr. Edmundo Exconde who personally attended to Javier found that the latter's serious condition was caused by
tetanus toxin. He noticed the presence of a healing wound in Javier's palm which could have been infected by tetanus.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier was wounded until his death which
would exculpate Urbano from any liability for Javiers death?

RULING OF THE COURT:
The incubation period of Tetanus ranges from 2 to 56 days between the time of the injury and the appearance of
unmistakable symptoms, but in the extreme/severe cases it usually occurs within 24 to 72 hours of the first symptoms which
referred to as Onset time. Mild tetanus meanwhile is characterized by an incubation period of at least 14 days and an onset
time of more than 6 days or equivalent to 20 days.

In the case at bar, the incident between Marcelo Javier and the petitioner happened 22 days after the death of Mr.
Javier due to tetanus bacteria but considering the interval period of it to the incident it is 2 days lapse where in Mr. Javier
suffered such symptoms like lockjaw and muscle spasms. It can be construed that there is no tetanus present at the time that
the petitioner inflicted such wound to Mr. Javier. Hence, Mr. Javiers wound could have been infected with tetanus after the
hacking incident. Considering the circumstances surrounding Javiers death, his wound could been infected by tetanus 2 or 3
days or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he expires.

Wherefore, the court increased the Php 12,000.00 indemnification imposed by the trial court to Php 30,000.00.
However, since the indemnification was based solely on the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the homicide case, the
civil liability of the petitioner was not thoroughly examined.

The court ruled that the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The questioned decision of the C.A. is reversed and set
aside. The petitioner is AQUITED of the crime of Homicide. Cost de Oficio , SO ORDERED.


SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner
-versus-
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents
GR. No. 103119, October 21,1992
(215 SCRA 52)

FACTS:
February 4, 1979, morning , Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador
Mandaya's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina
Palangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told
Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should
accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.

At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed
with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his
companions, Mandaya pointed the location of Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig
fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and her home was then occupied by her son-
in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire. Petitioner and
his companions were positively identified by witnesses. One witness testified that before the five men left the premises, they
shouted: "We will kill you (the witness) and especially Bernardina Palangpangan and we will come back if (sic) you were not
injured". After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder. The court (RTC), as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, holding that Petitioner was guilty of attempted murder.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, the petitioners attempted murder case can be modified as an impossible crime under Article 4 (2) of
the Revised Penal Code?

RULING OF THE COURT:
In the Philippines jurisdiction, Impossible crimes are recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent
is not merely a defense, but an act penalized itself. Furthermore, the phrase inherent impossibility that is found in Article 4
(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. Ubi lex non
distinguere debemos.

To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was attempted Murder because the absence of
Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the actors will, will render no use of the provision in the Article 4
which makes a person criminally liable for an act which would be an offense against person or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment.. In that case all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the
offense will be treated as an accident independent of the actors will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies.

The court ruled that the petition is GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals holding petitioner guilty of
Attempted Murder is hereby modified. The court hereby hold petitioner guilty of an impossible crime as defined and penalized
in Article 4 (2) and Article 59 of the RPC, respectively. Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by the
petitioner, the Court sentences him to suffer Six (6) months of Arresto mayor, together with the accessory penalties provided
by the law and to pay the cost. SO ORDERED.












AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA, petitioner
-versus-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
GR No. 171951, August 28,2009
(597 SCRA 392)

FACTS:
At approximately 11:00 a.m. on September 26, 1999, petitioner, Fidel Foz, Jr. and Armando Foz had a drinking spree at
the apartment unit of Bogie Tacuboy, which was adjacent to the house of Manuel K. Chy. At around 7:00 p.m., Chy appealed
for the group to quiet down as the noise from the videoke machine was blaring. It was not until Chy requested a second time
that the group acceded. Unknown to Chy, this left petitioner irate and petitioner was heard to have said in the Ilocano
vernacular, "Dayta a Manny napangas makaala caniac dayta." (This Manny is arrogant, I will lay a hand on him.) On
September 28, 1999, the group met again to celebrate the marriage of Ador Tacuboy not far from Chys apartment. Maya
Mabbun advised the group to stop singing lest they be told off again. This further infuriated petitioner who remarked, "Talaga
a napangas ni Manny saan ko a pagbayagen daytoy," meaning, "This Manny is really arrogant, I will not let him live long."

Yet again, at around 12:00 p.m. on September 29, 1999, the group convened at the house of Foz and Garcia. There,
petitioner, Foz, Jr. and Fred Rillon mused over the drinking session on the 26th and 28th of September and the confrontation
with Chy. Enraged at the memory, petitioner blurted out "Talaga a napangas dayta a day[t]oy a Manny ikabbut ko ita." (This
Manny is really arrogant, I will finish him off today.)8 Later that afternoon, the group headed to the store of Adela dela Cruz
where they drank until petitioner proposed that they move to Punta. On their way to Punta, the group passed by the store of
Aurelia Esquibel, Chys sister, and there, decided to have some drinks. At this juncture, petitioner ordered Esquibel to call on
Chy who, incidentally, was coming out of his house at the time. Upon being summoned, the latter approached petitioner who
suddenly punched him in the face. Chy cried out, "Bakit mo ako sinuntok hindi ka naman [inaano]?" (Why did you box me[?]
Im not doing anything to you.)9 But petitioner kept on assaulting him. Foz attempted to pacify petitioner but was himself hit
on the nose while Chy continued to parry the blows. Petitioner reached for a bottle of beer, and with it, struck the lower back
portion of Chys head. Then, Foz shoved Chy causing the latter to fall. When Chy found an opportunity to escape, he ran
towards his house and phoned his wife Josefina to call the police. Chy told Josefina about the mauling and complained of
difficulty in breathing. Upon reaching Chys house, the policemen knocked five times but nobody answered. Josefina arrived
minutes later, unlocked the door and found Chy lying unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating. He was pronounced dead on
arrival at the hospital. The autopsy confirmed that Chy died of myocardial infarction. The RTC of Appari Cagayan (Branch 9)
found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for the death of Manuel Chy?

RULING OF THE COURT:
Article 4 (1) of the RPC states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from which he intended. The essential requisites for the application of this
provisions are: (1) The intended act is felonious; (2) the resulting act is likewise a felony; and (3) the unintended albeit graver
wrong was primarily caused by the actors wrongful acts.

In the case at bar, petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed the victim and hit him with a bottle. Hence the
fact that Chy was previously afflicted with a heart failure does not alter petitioners liability for his death. In the jurisdiction, a
person committing a felony is responsible for all the natural and logical consequences resulting from it although the unlawful
act performed is different from the one he intended. el que causa de la causa es causa del mal causado ( he who is the
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.) Hence, the circumstances that the petitioner did not exempt him from
criminal liability. Since he already committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his guilt under Article 13
(3) of the revised Penal Code. Considering that the petitioner has in his favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, the imposable penalty should
be in the minimum period, that is, reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or anywhere from twelve (12) years and one (1)
day imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of ten(10) years of Prison Mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years
and eight (8) months as reclusion temporal as maximum.



Wherefore, the decision and resolution of C.A. are affirmed with modification in that the award of moral damages is
reduced to Php 50,000.00. Petitioner is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Manuel K. Chy of Php 50,000.00 as civil
indemnity; Php 200,000. 00 representing expenses for the wake and burial; and Php 1,229,600.00 as loss of earning capacity.

No pronouncement as to the cost. SO ORDERED.

Вам также может понравиться