PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ORLITO VILLACORTA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 186412; September 7, 2011
Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

FACTS:

This is an appeal of accused-appellant Orlito Villacorta on the decision of the Court of Appeals
finding him guilty of murder for stabbing Danilo Salvador Cruz with a sharpened bamboo stick
inflicting serious wounds upon the victim which resulted to the latter’s death.

When Cruz sustained the stab wound on January 23, 2002, he was taken to the Tondo Medical
Center, where he was treated as an out-patient. Cruz was only brought to the San Lazaro Hospital
on February 14, 2002, where he died the following day, on February 15, 2002.

Witness Dr. Domingo Belandres, testified that Cruz died of tetanus infection secondary to stab
wounds.

The RTC and CA both found the accused guilty of murder, qualified by treachery.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the accused should be liable for murder.

2. Whether or not the court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING:

1. No. Orlito Villacorta should be liable only for slight physical injuries since the proximate
cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound.

Proximate cause has been defined as "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred."

In the case at bar, there had been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the
date when Cruz was rushed to the hospital exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus infection.
Severe tetanus infection has a short incubation period of less than 14 days only. Ultimately, the
Court can only deduce that Cruz’s stab wound was merely the remote cause, and its subsequent
infection with tetanus might have been the proximate cause of Cruz's death. The infection of
Cruz’s stab wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Cruz
was stabbed to the time of his death.

Moreover, accused here cannot be held criminally liable for attempted or frustrated murder
because the prosecution was not able to establish the accused’s intent to kill. The accused
stabbed the victim only once with an instrument which is not as lethal as those made of metallic
material. There is, therefore, a doubt as to whether appellant had intent to kill the victim, which
should be resolved in favor of the appellant.

2. No. The Supreme Court sustained RTC and CA’s finding that treachery is duly proven in the
present case.

Treachery exists when the evidence shows the following elements: (1) the employment of the
means of execution would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation;
and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.

Wherefore, the decision of Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment
is entered finding Villacorta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight physical
injuries.