#27

Urbano vs IAC
GR 72964, January 7, 1988
Filomeno Urbano went to his rice field where in his palay was flooded with water coming from
the irrigation canal. There, he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Efre cutting grass. When he found
out that Javier was the one responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal, Urbano got angry
and hacked him with his bolo. Javier was brought to a hospital and Urbano promised to pay for
the medical expenses. After 22 days, Javier was rushed to the hospital where he had lockjaw
and convulsion caused by tetanus toxins and died the next day. Trial court found Urbano guilty
of homicide and IAC affirmed. Urbano filed a motion for reconciliation and/or new trial but was
denied; hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause of the
latter’s death
Held: Yes. Dr. Mario Meneses found no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier got infected with
tetanus when after two weeks he returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with his
bare hands exposing the wound to harmful elements like tetanus germs. The medical findings
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. The
infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
But the discussion of proximate cause and remote cause is limited to the criminal aspects of
this rather unusual case. It does not necessarily follow that the petitioner is also free of civil
liability. The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally liable, may still be civilly
liable. While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be established beyond
reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages.
(Article 29, Civil Code). Since the indemnification was based solely on the finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt in the homicide case, the civil liability of the petitioner was not thoroughly
examined. This aspect of the case calls for fuller development if the heirs of the victim are so
minded.
#28
Nicasio Bernaldes Sr. vs Bohol
GR. L-18193, February 27, 1963
The appellee’s bus where in Jovito Bernaldes and his brother, Nicasio boarded fell off a deep
precipice resulting in the death of Nicasio and in serious physical injuries to Jovito. A criminal
case was filed against the bus driver, Leonardo Balabag, but he was acquitted on the ground
that his guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. and that appellees, through Attys.
Amora and Tirol, intervened in the prosecution of said case and did not reserve the right to file
a separate action for damages.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Civil Case against the may still prosper.
HELD: Yes. First, Article 31 of the New Civil Code expressly provides that when the civil action is
based upon an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such
civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result
of the latter. Secondly, because, if at all, the intervention in the criminal case amounted
inferentially to submitting in said case the claim for civil liability, the claim could have been only
that against the driver, and not against the bus company, which was not a party therein. Lastly,
because, while there was no express reservation made, still such reservation is already implied
in the law which declares the civil action to be independent and separate from the criminal
action. As a matter of fact, the duty of the offended party to make such reservation applies only
when the civil action arises from the criminal case, but in this case, it is against persons
pursuant to article 31.

#29
Aberca vs Ver
160 SCRA 590, April 15, 1988

Major General Fabian Ver ordered respondents to conduct pre-emptive strikes

against Communist- Terrorist underground houses through Task Force Makabansa (TFM). TFM
raided several houses, employing in most cases defectively judicial search warrants, arrested
people without warrant of arrest, denied visitation rights, and interrogated them with the use
of threats and tortures.
Plaintiffs then filed an action for damages against respondents-officers of the AFP headed by
Ver. Respondents, in their motion to dismiss, claimed that plaintiffs may not cause a judicial
inquiry about their detention because the writ of habeas corpus was suspended,
defendants are immune from liability for acts done in their official duties and there was no
cause of action. the RTC granted the motion to dismiss the case.

Issue: Whether or not Aberca recover damages

Held: Article 32 of the Civil Code provides a sanction to rights and freedom enshrined in the
constitution. These rights cannot be violated just because of an order given by a superior. The
rule of law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Even though they just followed the orders of
their superior, these do not authorize them to disregard the rights of the petitioners, and
therefore cannot be considered “acts done in their official duties”. Article 32 speaks of any
public officer or private individual, and violation of these constitutional rights does
not exempt them from responsibility.

Also, article 32 speaks of the liabilities of people who are in direct violation of the rights stated,
as well as people who are indirectly responsible for such acts. In the case at hand, the superior
officers are the ones who gave the order, and can be considered indirectly responsible. It was
also stated in the complaint who were the ones who directly and indirectly participated in those
acts.