G.R. No.

152133 February 9, 2006

ROLLIE CALIMUTAN,
Petitioner,vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.,Respondents

FACTS:That on or about February 4, 1996, in the morning thereof, at sitio Capsay, Barangay
Panique,Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines Rollie Calimutan throw a
stone at PHILIPCANTRE, hitting him at the back left portion of his body, resulting in laceration
of spleen due toimpact which caused his death a day after.

ISSUES:Whether or not Rollie Calimutan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD:Yes Rollie Calimutan is guilty of the crime of homicide, Since it is irrefragable that the
stone thrownby petitioner Calimutan at the victim Cantre was the proximate cause of the
latters death, despitebeing done with reckless imprudence rather than with malicious intent,
petitioner Calimutan remainscivilly liable for such death.

FACTS

Victim Cantre crossed paths with petitioner Calimutan and a certain Michael
Bulalacao.Victim Cantre was harboring a grudge against Bulalacao, suspecting the
latter as theculprit responsible for throwing stones at the Cantres house on a previous
night. Thus,upon seeing Bulalacao, victim Cantre suddenly punched him. While
Bulalacao ranaway, petitioner Calimutan dashed towards the back of victim Cantre.
Petitioner Calimutan then picked up a stone which he threw at victim Cantre, hitting him
at the leftside of his back.

Victim Cantre complained of backache and also of stomachache, and was unable toeat.
By nighttime, victim Cantre was alternately feeling cold and then warm. He wassweating
profusely and his entire body felt numb. For the last time, he complained of backache
and stomachache, and shortly thereafter, he died.

Victim Cantre suffered from an internal hemorrhage and there was

massiveaccumulation of blood in his abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen.
Thelaceration of the spleen can be caused by any blunt instrument, such as a
stone.Hence, Dr. Mendez confirmed the possibility that the victim Cantre was stoned to
deathby petitioner Calimutan.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner should be convicted of Homicide?

Held: It should be remembered that the meeting was a chance encounter. While a
runninggrudge existed between the victim Cantre and Bulalacao, there was none
between thevictim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan.
The prosecution did not establish that petitioner Calimutan threw the stone at the
victimCantre with the specific intent of killing. What is obvious was petitioners intention
toprotect his helper Bulalacao who was, much younger and smaller in built than the
victimCantre.

In the absence of such intent, petitioner Calimutan is only guilty of reckless

imprudence resulting in homicide.

CALIMUTAN V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 152133, February 9, 2006
Lesson: Proof beyond reasonable doubt, Defense of Stranger, Proximate Cause,
intentional felonies and culpable felonies
Laws Applicable: Art. 3, Art. 4, Par. 1
FACTS:

February 4, 1996 around 10 am: Cantre and witness Saano, together with two other
companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar but as they were headed home, they
crossed paths with Calimutan and Michael Bulalacao.

Cantre, 26 years old and 5 ft. 9 inches, had a grudge against Bulalacao, a 15 year-old boy
of 5ft. for suspecting that he threw stones at the his house on a previous night so he
punched him

Seeking to protect Bulalacao and to stop Cantre, Calimutan picked a stone, as big as a
mans fist and hitting Cantre at the left side of his back not noticing that Bulalacao was
already able to ran away.

o Cantre stopped for a moment and held his back and Calimutan desisted from any other act
of violence

Witness Saano then brought Cantre home where he complained of backache and also
ofstomach ache and was unable to eat

By night time, he felt cold then warm then he was sweating profusely and his entire body
felt numb

o Having no vehicle, they could not bring him to a doctor so his mother just continue to wipe
him with a piece of cloth and brought him some food when he asked.
o After eating a little, he vomited.
o Shortly after complaining again of his backache and stomach ache, he died.

The Post-Mortem Examination Report and Certification of Death, issued and signed by Dr.
Ulanday, stated that the cause of death of victim Cantre was cardio-respiratory arrest due to
suspected food poisoning

With the help of the Lingkod Bayan-Circulo de Abogadas of the ABS-CBN Foundation, an
autopsy was done by Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez which showed that there was
internal hemorrhageand massive accumulation of blood in his abdominal cavity due to his
lacerated spleen caused by a blunt object like a stone.

RTC issued a warrant of arrest and during arraignment Calimutan pleaded not guilty to the
crime of homicide

RTC: Essentially adopting the prosecutions account of the incident, held that Calimutan
was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide with a penalty of imprisonment from 8
years of Prision Mayor as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal as
maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of Philip Cantre the sum of P50,000 as compensatory
damages and the sum of P50,000 as moral damages

o NOT defense of stranger , because after the boxing Bulalacao, he was able to run thereby
the unlawful aggression by Cantre ceased
o The act of throwing a stone from behind which hit the victim at his back on the left side was a
treacherous
o criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of this unlawful act even if the
ultimate result had not been intended

CA: Affirmed RTC

Calimutan filed a petition for review on certiorari contending that the dissimilar findings on
the cause of death constituted reasonable doubt
ISSUE: W/N he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide
HELD: NO. MODIFIED Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and is
accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period of 4 months of arresto mayor
to a maximum period of two years and one day of prision correccional. Petitioner Calimutan
is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim Cantre the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for the latters death and P50,000.00 as moral damages

Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind (NOT absolute certainty and the
exclusion of all possibility of error)

o Dr. Mendezs testimony as an expert witness is evidence, and although it does not
necessarily bind the courts, it is accorded great weight and probative value
may sufficiently establish the causal relationship between the stone thrown by the Calimutan
and the lacerated spleen of the Cantre which resulted in the latters death

Proximate cause - cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and WITHOUT which the result would NOT
have occurred

o Prosecution was able to establish that the proximate cause of the death of the Cantre was
the stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan.

Comparing the limited autopsy conducted by Dr. Ulanday and her unconfirmed suspicion of
food poisoning of the victim Cantre, as opposed to the exhaustive autopsy performed by Dr.
Mendez and his definitive finding of a ruptured spleen as the cause of death, then the latter,
without doubt, deserves to be given credence by the courts

Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies felonies according to the means by which
they are committed, in particular:

o (1) intentional felonies - existence of malicious intent

act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice)
o (2) culpable felonies - absence of malicious intent
act or omission of the offender is NOT malicious
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill

Absence of intent, Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code

o Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act
from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part
of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.