G.R. No. 137268.

March 26, 2001

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUTIQUIA CARMEN @ Mother Perpetuala,
CELEDONIA FABIE @ Isabel Fabie, DELIA SIBONGA @ Deding Sibonga, ALEXANDER SIBONGA @ Nonoy
Sibonga, and REYNARIO NUEZ @ Rey Nuez, accused-appellants.

MENDOZA, J.:

On the afternoon of January 27, 1997 in Cebu City Fatally inflicted physical injuries to on Randy Luntayao

 ON the day mentioned, Honey Fe Abella, 10, and Frances Rivera, 7 were playing takyan of the
house of bebing Lastimoso in cebu city when suddenly they heard a child shout, tabang ma
(Help mother!)
 The Cry came from the accused-appellant Carmen, who is known in their neighborhood as
Mother Perpetuala.

Honey Fe saw and testified to the court that:

 Saw a boy named Randy Luntayao being immersed head first in a drum of water
 Accused Alexander Sibonga was holding the waist of the body while Accused Reynario Nuez
held the hands of the boy at the back
 Accused Eutiquia Carmen, Alexander Sibonga, and Celedonia fabie were pushing the head of
the boy inside.
 Afterwards Reynario or Rey Nuez tie the boy on the bench with a green rope
 They forced the boy to drink gallons of water, and even bangs the head of the boy to the bench
to force him to drink. And punches the chest of the boy with their fist
 They further tortured the boy
 Then much later they saw Nonoy or Alexander Sibonga, Reynario Nuez, Delia Sibonga,
celedonia fabie, and Eutiquia Carmen carry the boy in the house

Eddie Luntayayo, Father, testified that:

 Randy was his eldest boy

 That on Novemeber 20, 1996, had a nervous break down, and would occasionally talk to
himself and laugh
 Upon the suggestion of Reynaraio Nuez (accused) they went to Cebu, and stayed in Nuezs
house
 The following day they went to the house of Carmen, wherein all of the accused – appellant
were present.
 Eddie talks with Carmen that the boy is being overtaken by a bad spirit, and wanted it exorcised,
fearing that the bad spirit might transfer to him
 Later on, he heard his son shout twice asking for help. Eddie tried to get out of the room but it
was locked
 After an hour, they were transferred to the praying room
 The accused – appellant brought the body of Randy, and it was clearly dead, but told them that
the boy will be resurrected at 7:00 pm
Knowing that the body wouldn’t be resurrected, accused-appellant Carmen called for a coffin, and
arranged the body be put in the house of Accused – appellant Nuez

Later on, Nuez instructed Eddie to go with him to the Municipal heal office to Report of the death, and
told him to be quiet or else he wouldn’t be able to get the papers for burial.

The accused overseer burial in Tange Talisay, but Eddie protested that they want the body be buried to
Sikatuna, Isabela, Negros occidental, but that would not be possible for it they might get arrested

Eddie, filed a complaint for Murder

1. The NBI investigated the case

Findings of the investigation was:

Cause of death: internal effects of a traumatic head injury or chest injury

The trial court found them guilty of murder arguing that killing a person with treachery is murder. It
cited a court decision stating that even if there is no intent to kill, in inflicting physical injuries with
treachery, the accused in that case was convicted of murder. Intent is presumed from the commission of
an unlawful act. In the case at bar, there is enough evidence that the accused confederated with each
other in inflicting physical harm to the victim (illegal act). These acts were intentional and thus they
should be liable for all the direct and natural consequences of their unlawful ac

The prosecution called Eddie Luntayao to the stand, and rebutted the testimonies of the defendants
witnesses. Stating that they were locked in a room

Issue: WON the accused was guilty of the crime of murder

Judgement:

NO, there was no criminal intent on theparat of the accused to kill the boy. It was shown that the
accused are members of a cult and the bizarre ritual was consented to by the parents of the boy. Their
liability arises from their reckless imprudence because they ought to know their actions would not bring
about the cure. They are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and not murder

 Reckless imprudence that there is lack of skill. There was lack of skill to cure the boy, hence
death