Filomeno Urbano vs. Hon.

Intermediate Appellate Court and the People of the Philippines

GR No. 72964; January 7, 1988

FACTS: On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano went to his rice field and found the place
where he stored his palay flooded with water. He observed that the water was coming from the
irrigation canal nearby which overflowed. He asked his neighbor, Marcelo Javier, as to who was
responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal. Javier admitted that he was the one who did it.
Urbano got angry and demanded that Javier pay for his soaked palay. A quarrel between them ensued,
with Urbano inflicting a 2-inch incised wound on the right palm of Javier. After Javier’s wound was
examined and treated, Urbano and Javier agreed to settle their differences. Javier accepted and granted
forgiveness to Urbano after the latter has agreed to pay P700.00 for the former’s medical expenses.

On November 14, 1980, twenty two (22) days after the incident, Javier was rushed to the hospital
because he was having convulsions and lockjaw. It was found that his serious condition was caused by
tetanus toxin. The healing wound on his right palm could have been infected by tetanus. The following
day, he died in the hospital.

The trial court charged Urbano with the crime of homicide. They ruled that Javier’s death was the
natural and logical consequence of Urbano’s unlawful act. The proximate cause of the victim’s death
was the wound which got infected with tetanus.

Petitioner reiterates that the proximate cause of Javier’s death was due to his own negligence for not
tending to his wound well.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier was wounded until
his death which would exculpate Urbano from any liability for Javier’s death

RULING: