Urbano vs IAC

Filomeno Urban guilty beyond reasonable doubt

of the crime of homicide.
Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at
Barangay Anonang
his palay flooded with water coming from the
irrigation canal
there he saw Marcelo Javier and milio rfe
cutting grass. !e as"ed 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 soa"ed palay
Urbano who hac"ed him again hitting Javier on
the left leg with the bac" portion of said bolo#
causing a swelling on said leg. $hen Urbano
tried to hac" and inflict further in%ury# his
daughter embraced and prevented him from
hac"ing Javier.
rfes together with Javier went to the police
station of &an Fabian to report the incident. As
suggested by Corporal 'orio# Javier was brought
to a physician
Urbano promised to pay ()**.** for the medical
e+penses of Javier.
on ,ovember -.# -/0*# Javier was rushed to the
,a1areth 2eneral !ospital
had loc"%aw and was having convulsions
caused by tetanus to+in.
In an information dated April -*# -/0-# Filomeno
Urbano was charged with the crime of homicide
before the then Circuit Criminal Court of
3agupan City# 'hird Judicial 3istrict.
'he appellant filed a motion for reconsideration
and4or new trial
motion was denied. !ence# this petition
lower courts ruled that Javier5s death was the
natural and logical conse6uence of Urbano5s
unlawful act.
Appellate court ruled that 'he claim of appellant
that there was an efficient cause which
supervened from the time the deceased was
wounded to the time of his death# which covers
a period of 78 days
# the pro+imate cause of the victim5s death was
the wound which got infected with tetanus. And
the settled rule in this %urisdiction is that an
accused is liable for all the conse6uences of his
unlawful act.
Appellant5s allegation that the pro+imate cause
of the victim5s death was due to his own
negligence in going bac" to wor" without his
wound being properly healed# and lately# that he
went to catch fish in dirty irrigation canals
'he &C rulethat 3r. Mario Meneses found no
tetanus in the in%ury# and that Javier got infected
with tetanus when after two wee"s he returned
to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with
his bare hands e+posing the wound to harmful
elements li"e tetanus germs.
9that cause# which# in natural and continuous
se6uence# unbro"en by any efficient intervening
cause# produces the in%ury# and without which
the result would not have occurred
'he infection was# therefore# distinct and foreign
to the crime
'he rule is that the death of the victim must be
the direct, natural, and logical consequence of
the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused.
medical findings# however# lead us to a distinct
possibility that the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later
or between the time Javier was wounded to the
time of his death
And if an independent negligent act or defective
condition sets into operation the instances which
result in in%ury because of the prior defective
condition# such subse6uent act or condition is
the pro+imate cause.9
AC:UI''3
People vs hilario
Carlos ;eyes
while rela+ing with his friend in front of a store#
he was sub%ected to a treacherous assault by
two brothers and their cumpadre. It turned out
the three mista"enly bent their terror on him <<<
the one they really planned to "ill was his friend.
stab one CA;=>& ;?& ? =A&CA,> thereby
inflicting upon the latter serious physical in%uries
which directly caused his death.
saw Berong and the victim Carlos ;eyes in front
of the store s6uatting and tal"ing to each other.
Both were wearing white shirts. A little later#
Berong removed his white shirt
'hen he saw ;odrigo handing a bolo to his
brother ;odolfo and an ice<pic" one foot long to
their cumpadre# saying at the same time# 9'he
one in white shirt." In a swift# sudden motion#
the cumpadre bluntly stabbed Carlos ;eyes on
the chest#
arose the suspicion of the brothers !ilario who
feared that 3anilo would blow the whistle on
them.
saw 2reg fre6uenting the house of 3anilo.
. >n April 77# -//- at about 0 o5cloc" in the
evening# ;odrigo waited in ambush and hac"ed
him repeatedly on the head# and left and right
arms.
;odrigo stated that
'he reason 3anilo might have dragged him in
this case was because the former harbored a
grudge against him. 'rial court convicted him as
principal of murder.
'! ';IA= C>U;' ;;3 I,
2I@I,2 C;3,C '> &'A;
$I',&& 3A,I=>
MA,AA,A;&5 '&'IM>,?
$!IC! $A& >B@I>U&=?
FAB;ICA'3 A,3
;!A;&3.
;odrigo interposed this appeal
&'A; $I',&& 3A,I=> MA,AA,A;&
'&'IM>,? $A& U,C>;;>B>;A'3 B?
'!>& $!> $; =IB$I& (;&,' A'
'! &'>;.
C>U;' FAI=3 '> C>,&I3; '! A=IBI >F
'! ACCU&3 '!A' ! $A& $I'! '!
;>@I,2 'AM >F BA;A,2A? 'A,>3& >,
'!A' FA'FU= ,I2!'
'he evidence also sufficiently demonstrates the
e+istence of conspiracy in the e+ecution of the
crime
If an e+press or implied conspiracy is proven#
then all the conspirators may be regarded as co<
principals regardless of the e+tent of their
participation in the e+ecution of the crime. 'heir
liability is collective or %oint.
C

According to Art. . of the ;evised (enal Code#
criminal liability is incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from that which is intended.
>ne who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the conse6uences which may
naturally or logically result therefrom
)
In legal contemplation# the act of one is the act
of all.
0
!ence# all the three accused are liable
as principals for the death of the victim Carlos
;eyes
. 'he rule is well<settled that delay in reporting
what a witness "nows about the crime does not
render his testimony false
Appellant ne+t puts the prosecution to tas" for its
failure to present other witnesses who could
have corroborated the testimony of star witness
3anilo
$e have constantly ruled that the testimony of a
single witness if credible would already suffice to
sustain a conviction.
-)

Basic is the rule that positive identification
prevails over alibi.
77

GUILTY of MURDER 6ualified by treachery
People vs tadeo
Michael 'adeo was drin"ing with the deceased
Mayolito Cabatu
after five DCE hours of imbibing alcohol# Mayolito
was so dead drun" that he e+cused himself and
proceeded to the pavement ad%acent to
,icomedes Cabacungan5s house
Mayolito shouted 9barako#9 apparently to tease
accused<appellant and titillate him into a 9fight9
3run" and wobbly too# accused<appellant
Michael 'adeo instantaneously grabbed a beer
bottle and tried to whac" Mayolito with it on the
head.
But ;ic"y Cardona and Florencia Cabatu 6uic"ly
intervened to prevent accused<appellant from
inflicting harm upon Mayolito. Accused<
appellant bris"ly went home e+claiming#
9Aguray kadta a!9 which means 9Wait, I will
come back!9 'hen he hastily returned clutching
a .80 cal. revolver and confronted Mayolito#
;ic"y and Florencia why they were intervening.
!e shot mayolito F times and went bac" to his
house to reload his gun and then shot florencia
on her left buttoc".
barangay kapitan of &to. 3omingo# :uirino#
Isabela# reported the crime to the police precinct
'he father yielded a gun to the policemen
which he said was the weapon used in the
crime# while accused<appellant turned himself
in.
iGCH
Michael 'adeo was accordingly charged with
murder for the fatal shooting of Mayolito Cabatu
DCrim. Case ,o. 78<./0E# frustrated murder for
the in%ury sustained by Florencia Cabatu DCrim.
Case ,o. 78<./.E# and violation of par. 7# &ec.
-# (3 -0FF# or 6ualified illegal possession of
firearm# i.e
offered self<defense as his version of the
incident.
the court
convicted accused<appellant of the crimes
charged and sentenced him to reclusion
perpetua
accused<appellant
but 6uestions the appreciation of the
6ualifying circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation# and claims that he should
instead be held guilty of homicide and frustrated
homicide only Further# he insists that the trial
court erroneously disregarded the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender in imposing
the proper penalties# including the absence of
any evidence indicating that the gun he used
was unlicensed.
the e+ecution of the criminal act must come with
sober thought and reflection upon the resolution
to carry out the criminal intent during the space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm %udgment.
accused<appellant cannot be accused of
treachery. Under this state# he did not have the
time nor the proper disposition to reflect on the
means or mode of attac" for it to be said that he
deliberately and consciously pulled out his gun
and fired
Furthermore# the heated e+changes
between him and the deceased prior to the
attac" must have placed the latter on his guard#
hence# we cannot rule that Mayolito Cabatu was
caught completely by surprise when accused<
appellant too" up arms against him.
For there to be treachery by reason of the
suddenness and une+pectedness of the attac"#
there must have been no warning of any sort to
the deceased or offended party.
'his crime which has been erroneously labeled
as 9frustrated murder9 lac"s the twin elements of
aleviosaI DaE that at the time of the attac"# the
victim was not in a position to defend himselfJ
and# DbE that the offender consciously adopted
the particular means# method or form of attac"
employed by him.
As shown above# the actual nature of the wound
on the left buttoc" of Florencia Cabatu indicated
that it was not fatal nor that it was infected with
tetanus at the time it was inflicted.
!ence# we cannot conclude that all the acts of
e+ecution had been performed by accused<
appellant to "ill the hapless woman# for to
classify the crime in the frustrated stage# the rule
is that the probable death of the victim must be
the direct# natural and logical conse6uence of
the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused
'he trial court also erred in not crediting
accused<appellant with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
re6uisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating
circumstance# namelyI DaE the offender was not
actually arrestedJ DbE he surrendered to a person
in authority or to an agent of a
person in authorityJ and# DcE his surrender was
voluntary.
iiG
9i!f homicide or murder is committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance#9
where murder or homicide was committed#
the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is
no longer imposable since it becomes merely a
special aggravating circumstance.
iiiG-0H
'he use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be
considered however as a special aggravating
circumstance in Crim. Case ,o. 78<./0 and
Crim. Case ,o. 78<./.. For one# it was not
alleged as an aggravating circumstance in the
Informations for murder and frustrated murder
which is necessary under our present "evised
"ules of #riminal $rocedure.
ivG-/H
Moreover# even
if alleged# the circumstance cannot be
retroactively applied to pre%udice accused<
appellant
we find accused<appellant guilty of !>MICI3
and# considering the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender
In Crim. Case ,o. 78<./. we find accused<
appellant guilty of A''M('3 !>MICI3 and#
considering the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender#
AFFI;M3.
'he conviction of accused<apellant Michael
'adeo in Crim. Case ,o. 78<.// for illegal
possession of firearm used in the commission of
murder and frustrated murder# i.e.# violation of
par. 7# &ec. -# (3 -0FF# and sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua is ;@;&3 and &'
A&I3# and the accused is AC:UI''3
iGCH
Id.# p. 0.
iiG-FH
(eople v . 2u1man# 2.;. ,o. -87)C*# -. 3ecember 7**-J (eople v . Ma1o# 2.;. ,o. -8F0F/# -) >ctober
7**-J (eople v . =ibrando# 2.;. ,o. -877C-# F July 7***# 88C &C;A 787.
iiiG-0H
(eople v . 2arcia# 2.;. ,os. -88.0/ K -.8/)*# -C January 7**7.
ivG-/H
(eople v . Candido# 2.;. ,os. -8.*)7<)8# -* June 7**7.
Intod vs ca
attempted murder.
!e told Mandaya that he wanted (alangpangan to be "illed because of a land dispute between them and that
Mandaya should accompany the four D.E men# otherwise# he would also be "illed.
. 'hereafter# (etitioner# (angasian# 'ubio and 3aligdig fired at said room. It turned out# however# that
(alangpangan was in another City
>ne witness testified that before the five men left the premises# they shoutedI 9$e will "ill you Dthe witnessE and
especially Bernardina (alangpangan and we will come bac" if DsicE you were not in%ured9.
2
After trial# the ;egional 'rial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.
(etitioner contends that# (alangpangan5s absence from her room on the night he and his companions
riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible.
;espondent (eople of the (hilippines argues that the crime was not impossible. Instead# the facts were
sufficient to constitute an attempt and to convict Intod for attempted murder. ;espondent alleged that there was
intent. Further# in its Comment to the (etition# respondent pointed out thatI
'he crime of murder was not consummated# not because of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment DArt.
.D7E# ;evised (enal CodeE# but due to a cause or accident other than petitioner5s and his accused5s own
spontaneous desistance
. 'o be impossible under this clause# the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment.
# factual impossibility occurs when e+traneous circumstances un"nown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime
. It is well settled principle of criminal law in this country that where the criminal result of an
attempt is not accomplished simply because of an obstruction in the way of the thing to be
operated upon# and these facts are un"nown to the aggressor at the time# the criminal attempt is
committed.
. . factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed
had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be# it is no defense that in reality the crime was
impossible of commission.
=egal impossibility# on the other hand# is a defense which can be invo"ed to avoid criminal liability for an attempt
(etitioner guilty of an impossible crime