102 | Criminal Liability (felony be different from the one intended)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NOEL SALES

G.R. No. 177218, 3 October 2011

Facts

In the night of September 2002 in Camarines Sur, appellant Noel T. Sales beaten his two sons
Noel Jr. and Noelmar because they failed to return home after joining the fluvial procession of
Our Lady of Penafracia. Sales whipped his son with a piece of wood approximately one meter in
lenght and one and a half inches in diameter. After he was finished beating his sons, his wife,
Maria, noticed that there was a crack in the head of Noemar so they brought him to a quack
doctor, who said that Noemar was already dead.

Appellant held Noemar while on their way to the crossroad and observed his difficulty in
breathing. The pupils of Noemar’s eyes were also moving up and down. Appellant heard him
say that he wanted to sleep and saw him pointing to his chest in pain. However, they waited in
vain since a vehicle never came. It was then that Noemar died. Appellant thus decided to just
bring Noemar back to their house.

The wake of the child lasted only for a day and his body was never examined by a physician.

Sales surrendered to the police the day after.

RTC found Sales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Sales appealed to CA but the CA affirmed the decision
of RTC.
Report this ad

Appellant raised the argument that it was at this moment that Noemar died, not during his
whipping. To substantiate his claim, appellant presented his wife, Maria, who testified that
Noemar indeed suffered seizures, but this was due to epilepsy.

Issues: Whether or not the accused is guilty of parricide and physical injuries

Held

The accused cannot escape criminal liability. According to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,
a person is criminally liable for “committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.”

Yes. All the elements of the crime of parricide is present in this case.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3)
the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused.

In the case at bench, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the first element, that is, a person
was killed. There is likewise no doubt as to the existence of the second element that the
appellant killed the deceased. It is sufficiently established by the positive testimonies of Maria
and Junior. As to the third element, appellant himself admitted that the deceased is his child.

As to the charge of Physical injuries, the victim himself, Junior testified that he, together with his
brother Noemar, were beaten by their father, herein appellant, while they were tied to a coconut
tree. He recalled to have been hit on his right eye and right leg and to have been examined by
a physician thereafter. Maria corroborated her son’s testimony.

The accused is guilty of parricide and slight physical injuries. For the crime of parricide, the Court
reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua because of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. In addition to this, the Court affirmed the decision of the RTC in imposing the penalty of
twenty days of arresto menor in its medium period.