Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

G.R. No.

L-38773 December 19, 1933


GINES ALBURQUERQUE Y SANCHEZ, defendant-appellant.

The appellant herein, who is a widower of fifty-five years of age at least, to support her and his child. Although the deceased
and father of nine living children, has been suffering from partial agreed to give the child a monthly allowance by way of support,
paralysis for some time, walks dragging one leg and has lost he never complied with his promise.
control of the movement of his right arm. He has been unable to
work since he suffered the stroke of paralysis. One of his The appellant was in such a mood when he presented himself
daughters was named Maria and another, are married, while still one day at the office where the deceased worked and asked
another one is a nun. With the exemption of the other married leave of the manager thereof to speak to Osma. They both went
daughter and the nun, of all of them, including the appellant, live downstairs. What happened later, nobody witnessed. But the
with Maria upon whom they depend for support. undisputed fact is that on that occasion the appellant inflicted a
wound at the base of the neck of the deceased, causing his
Among the daughters living with Maria, one named Pilar became death.
acquainted and had intimate relations later with the deceased
Manuel Osma about the end of the year 1928. It was then that the After excluding the improbable portions thereof, the court infers
appellant became acquainted with the deceased who frequently from the testimony of the appellant that he proposed to said
visited Pilar in his house. The relations between Pilar and the deceased to marry his daughter and that, upon hearing that the
deceased culminated in Pilar's giving birth to a child. The latter refused to do so, he whipped out his penknife. Upon seeing
appellant did not know that his daughter's relations with the the appellant's attitude, the deceased tried to seize him by the
deceased had gone to such extremes, that he had to be deceived neck whereupon the said appellant stabbed him on the face with
with the information that she had gone to her godfather's house in the said penknife. Due to his lack of control of the movement of
Singalong, when in fact she had been taken to the Chinese his arm, the weapon landed on the base of the neck of the
Hospital for delivery. The appellant learned the truth only when deceased.
Pilar returned home with her child.
Naturally the appellant was deeply affected by this incident, since
which time he has appeared sad and worried not only because of WON THE ACT IN SELF DEFENSE
the dishonor it brought upon his family but also because the child
meant an added burden to Maria upon whom they all depended RULING
for support. For some time the appellant wrote letters, that at
times were hostile and threatening and at other times entreating
the deceased to legitimize his union with Pilar by marrying her, or
contention that he acted in legitimate self-defense inasmuch as the crime of murder with aggravating circumstances of evident
he provoked and commenced the aggression by whipping out premeditation and treachery.
and brandishing his penknife.
The defense likewise claims that, at all events, article 49 of the  WON Fernando could be absolved of his criminal liability given that
Revised Penal Code, which refers to cases where the crime the victim was subsequently run over by a vehicle
committed is different from that intended by the accused, should
be applied herein. This article is a reproduction of article 64 of the RULING:
old Code and has been interpreted as applicable only in cases
where the crime befalls a different person (decisions of the  1 st issue: Denied.
Supreme Court of Spain of October 20, 1897, and June 28,1899),
 Based on the doctrine: “el que es causa de la causa es causa del
which is not the case herein.
mal causado” (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
evil caused), the essential requisites of Article 4 are: (a) that an
intentional felony has been committed, and (b) that the wrong done
 August 4, 1980 – After a barrio fiesta in Vinzons, Camarines Norte, to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence
Edmundo pushed aside the group of Esmeraldo Quinones, Jr., Zaldi of the felony committed by the offender. These requisites are present
Asis, and Felix Lukban, and even prompted Zaldi to box. Fernando in this case. The intentional felony was the hacking by Fernando.
brought out his bolo when he saw Edmundo on the ground, hacked
 The second requisite was also met. Given that the incident
Zaldi but missed. The group of Quinones was then pursued by the
happened on a national highway where vehicles are expected to
three accused.
pass, Fernando’s hacking of Quinones’s head was the proximate,
 Upon seeing they were no longer being chased, Quinones invited might not be direct, cause of the latter’s death. The sequence of
the other two to his house so that he could change to his working events from Fernando’s assault to the time Quinones was run over
clothes as a bus conductor. by a vehicle is one unbroken chain of events. With that said, it did
not really matter if he directly caused Quinones’s death or if he
 While the trio were walking along a national highway towards the actually meant it. Having triggered such events, Iligan cannot escape
victim’s house, the three accused suddenly emerged on the road liability even though the autopsy indicated that the death was caused
side. That was the time when Fernando hacked Quinones, Jr. on his by a vehicular accident.
face, causing fatal injuries on the latter’s face which resulted in his
death.  Since treachery and evident premeditation were not established,
the lower court’s charge for Fernando was modified from murder to
 The accused denied having perpetrated the crime and stated that homicide.
they were on their respective houses when the crime occurred.
 However, it was not clearly established that Edmundo took any
 The lower court found that Iligan’s group conspired to kill anyone or direct part in the hacking incident since mere knowledge/approval of
all members of the group of the victim to vindicate the boxing on the the act without cooperation is not enough to charge him a co-
face of Edmundo. Fernando and Edmundo were then charged with principal. Therefore, he deserved exoneration.