Page 1 of 1

People of the Philippines vs. Isaias Castillo y Completo

G.R. No. 172695 29 June 2007
Exempting circumstance: Accident without Fault or Intention of Causing it

FACTS:
1. In the evening of 5 November 1993, the accused-appellant came home drunk and angry.
2. His father-in-law (Guillermo) tried to subdue him but to no avail which caused the former to leave the house.
3. As he was leaving, Guillermo saw him take out his sling and arrow.
4. Consorcia, the accuseds wife, was heard crying and screaming.
5. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was seen carrying the bloodied body of Consorcia out of the house and was later taken to
the hospital but to no avail.
6. Cause of death was the cut jugular vein caused by a fatal weapon which could have been a pointed instrument like a nail.
7. Appellant was charged with parricide for allegedly shooting his wife with a dart from a rubber sling, hitting her at the neck and
causing her instantaneous death.
8. In his defense, the accused said that he had no intention of killing his wife and that he was practicing the use of the weapon
when his wife was accidentally hit by the arrow.
9. However, the trial court nonetheless found him guilty on the ground that the evidence showed that the infliction of the fatal
injury upon his wife was preceded by a quarrel between her and the appellant, thus negating the latters defense.
10. The same was affirmed on appeal.
11. In the present petition, the appellant contends that assuming that he was the one who killed his wife the same was accidental
and not intentional.

ISSUE: Is the exempting circumstance of accident applicable in the instant case?

HELD:

1. No. Article 12, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, provides: ART. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.
The following are exempt from criminal liability: Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury
by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
2. "Accident" is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence. The
defense miserably failed to discharge its burden of proof. The essential requisites for this exempting circumstance, are:
i. A person is performing a lawful act;
ii. With due care;
iii. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
iv. Without fault or intention of causing it.
3. By no stretch of imagination could playing with or using a deadly sling and arrow be considered as performing a "lawful act."
4. Thus, on this ground alone, appellant's defense of accident must be struck down because he was performing an unlawful act
during the incident.
5. Also, the fact that the accused-appellant disappeared while his wife was in the hospital is unbecoming of a husband with a
dying wife.
6. Accused was found guilty of the crime of Parricide wherein the court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.