INTOD V.

CA [215 SCRA 52 (1992)]

Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palan!panan d"e to land disp"te#
$%ey &ired at %er room# 'owe(er) s%e was in anot%er city t%en t%"s t%ey %it no one#
Issue: *+, %e is lia-le &or attempted m"rder.
Held: ,o# +nly impossi-le crime# In t%e P%ilippines) Article /(2) pro(ides and
p"nis%es an impossi-le crime0an act w%ic%) were it not aimed at somet%in 1"ite
impossi-le or carried o"t wit% means w%ic% pro(e inade1"ate wo"ld constit"te a
&elony aainst person or &amily# Its p"rpose is to p"nis% criminal tendencies# $%ere
m"st eit%er -e (1) leal responsi-ility) or (2) p%ysical impossi-ility o& accomplis%in
t%e intended act in order to 1"ali&y t%e act as an impossi-le crime# 2eal impossi-ility
occ"rs w%ere t%e intended acts e(en i& completed) wo"ld not amo"nt to a crime#
$%"s3 2eal impossi-ility wo"ld apply to t%ose circ"mstances w%ere3
(1) $%e moti(e) desire and e4pectation is to per&orm an act in (iolation o& t%e
law5
(2) $%ere is no intention to per&orm t%e p%ysical act5
(6) $%ere is a per&ormance o& t%e intended p%ysical act5 and
(/) $%e conse1"ence res"ltin &rom t%e intended act does not amo"nt to a
crime#
7act"al impossi-ility occ"rs w%en e4traneo"s circ"mstances "nknown to actor or
-eyond control pre(ent cons"mmation o& intended crime#
7act"al impossi-ility o& t%e commission o& t%e crime is not a de&ense# I& t%e crime
co"ld %a(e -een committed %ad t%e circ"mstances -een as t%e de&endant -elie(ed
t%em to -e) it is no de&ense t%at in reality) t%e crime was impossi-le o& commission#
2eal impossi-ility on t%e ot%er %and is a de&ense w%ic% can -e in(oked to a(oid
criminal lia-ility &or an attempt# $%e &act"al sit"ation in t%e case at -ar presents a
p%ysical impossi-ility w%ic% rendered t%e intended crime impossi-le o&
accomplis%ment# And "nder Article /) pararap% 2 o& t%e Re(ised Penal Code) s"c% is
s"&&icient to make t%e act an impossi-le crime#
GEMMA T. JACINTO Vs. PEOPLE of THE
PHILIPPINES
Jacinto worked as collector for Mega Foam International, Inc. In 1997, she did not remit to
her employer the check issued by the latters customer and, instead, deposited it to the bank
account of her brother!in!law. "he check, howe#er, bounced. "he $"% and %& held Jacinto
guilty of the crime of 'ualified theft.
"he issue is that( )as the ruling correct* +o. &s may be gleaned from &rticles ,-. and ,1- of
the $e#ised /enal %ode,the personal property sub0ect of the theft must ha#e some #alue, as
the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. "his is further bolstered by
&rticle ,-9, where the law pro#ides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is
dependent on the #alue of the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the
postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was apparently without #alue, as it
was subse'uently dishonored. )hat Jacinto committed was an impossible crime, defined
and penali1ed under &rticle 2, paragraph 3 of the $e#ised /enal %ode which pro#ides(
&rt. 2. %riminal $esponsibility. ! %riminal responsibility shall be incurred( 4 4 4 3. 5y any
person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inade'uate or ineffectual means.
"hus, the re'uisites of an impossible crime are( 617 that the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property8 637 that the act was done with e#il intent8 and 6,7 that its
accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inade'uate or
ineffectual. &ll the re'uisites are present in this case( 617 Jacinto performed all the acts to
consummate the crime of 'ualified theft, which is a crime against property8 637 Jacintos e#il
intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for her
employer showed her intent to gain or be un0ustly enriched8 and 6,7 "he crime of 'ualified
theft was not produced because of the e4traneous circumstance that the check was unfunded
and was subse'uently dishonored.
G.R. No. 162540 8"ly 16) 2999
GEA T. !ACINTO" Petitioner
(s#
#EO#$E OF THE #HI$I##INE%" Res&o'de't
#ERA$TA" J.:
A petition &or re(iew on certiorari &iled -y petitioner :emma $# 8acinto seekin t%e re(ersal o& t%e ;ecision
o& t%e Co"rt o& Appeals a&&irmin petitioner<s con(iction o& t%e crime o& ="ali&ied $%e&t) and its Resol"tion
denyin petitioner<s motion &or reconsideration#
Facts: >a-y A1"ino %anded petitioner :emma 8acinto a >anco ;e +ro (>;+) C%eck in t%e
amo"nt o& P19)999#99# $%e c%eck was payment &or >a-y A1"ino<s p"rc%ases &rom ?ea
7oam Int<l#) Inc#) and petitioner was t%en t%e collector o& ?ea 7oam# Some%ow) t%e
c%eck was deposited in t%e 2and >ank acco"nt o& :eneroso Capitle) t%e %"s-and o&
8ac1"eline Capitle5 t%e latter is t%e sister o& petitioner and t%e &ormer pricin)
merc%andisin and in(entory clerk o& ?ea 7oam#
2ater) Rowena Rica-lanca) anot%er employee o& ?ea 7oam) recei(ed a p%one call &rom
an employee o& 2and >ank) w%o was lookin &or :eneroso Capitle# $%e reason &or t%e
call was to in&orm Capitle t%at t%e s"-@ect >;+ c%eck deposited in %is acco"nt %ad -een
dis%onored# Rica-lanca t%en called and relayed t%e messae t%ro"% acc"sed Anita
Aalencia) a &ormer employeeBcollector o& ?ea 7oam) -eca"se t%e Capitles did not %a(e
a p%one5 -"t t%ey co"ld -e reac%ed t%ro"% Aalencia) a nei%-or and &ormer co!
employee o& 8ac1"eline Capitle at ?ea 7oam#
Aalencia t%en told Rica-lanca t%at t%e c%eck came &rom >a-y A1"ino) and instr"cted
Rica-lanca to ask >a-y A1"ino to replace t%e c%eck wit% cas%# Aalencia also told
Rica-lanca o& a plan to take t%e cas% and di(ide it e1"ally into &o"r3 &or %ersel&)
Rica-lanca) petitioner 8acinto and 8ac1"eline Capitle# Rica-lanca) "pon t%e ad(ise o&
?ea 7oam<s acco"ntant) reported t%e matter to t%e owner o& ?ea 7oam) 8osep%
;y%enco#
$%erea&ter) 8osep% ;y%enco talked to >a-y A1"ino and was a-le to con&irm t%at t%e
latter indeed %anded petitioner a >;+ c%eck &or P19)999#99 as payment &or %er
p"rc%ases &rom ?ea 7oam# >a-y A1"ino &"rt%er testi&ied t%at petitioner 8acinto also
called %er on t%e p%one to tell %er t%at t%e >;+ c%eck -o"nced# Aeri&ication &rom
company records s%owed t%at petitioner ne(er remitted t%e s"-@ect c%eck to ?ea
7oam# 'owe(er) >a-y A1"ino said t%at s%e %ad already paid ?ea 7oam P19)999#99
cas% as replacement &or t%e dis%onored c%eck#
;y%enco &iled a Complaint wit% t%e ,ational >"rea" o& In(estiation (,>I) and worked
o"t an entrapment operation wit% its aents# $en pieces o& P1)999#99 -ills pro(ided -y
;y%enco were marked and d"sted wit% &l"orescent powder -y t%e ,>I# $%erea&ter) t%e
-ills were i(en to Rica-lanca) w%o was tasked to pretend t%at s%e was oin alon wit%
Aalencia<s plan#
Rica-lanca) petitioner) %er %"s-and) and Aalencia t%en -oarded petitioner<s @eep and
went on to >a-y A1"ino<s &actory# +nly Rica-lanca ali%ted &rom t%e @eep and entered
t%e premises o& >a-y A1"ino) pretendin t%at s%e was ettin cas% &rom >a-y A1"ino#
'owe(er) t%e cas% s%e act"ally -ro"%t o"t &rom t%e premises was t%e P19)999#99
marked money pre(io"sly i(en to %er -y ;y%enco# Rica-lanca di(ided t%e money and
"pon ret"rnin to t%e @eep) a(e P5)999#99 eac% to Aalencia and petitioner# $%erea&ter)
petitioner and Aalencia were arrested -y ,>I aents) w%o %ad -een watc%in t%e w%ole
time#
A case was &iled aainst t%e t%ree acc"sed) 8acinto) Aalencia and Capitle# R$C
rendered its ;ecision &indin t%em G(I$T) -eyond reasona-le do"-t o& t%e
crime o& QUALIFIED THEFT and sentenced eac% imprisonment o& FIVE *5+
)EAR%" FIVE *5+ ONTH% AND E$EVEN *11+ DA)%" as minimum" to %I,
*6+ )EAR%" EIGHT *-+ ONTH% AND T.ENT) *20+ DA)%" as maximum#
$%e t%ree appealed to t%e CA and t%e decision o& t%e trial co"rt was
ODIFIED) in t%at3(a) t%e sentence aainst acc"sed :emma 8acinto stands5
(-) t%e sentence aainst acc"sed Anita Aalencia is red"ced to / mont%s arresto
mayor medi"m) and (c) $%e acc"sed 8ac1"eline Capitle is ac1"itted# 'ence)
t%e present Petition &or Re(iew on Certiorari &iled -y petitioner alone)
Issue: *%et%er or not a wort%less c%eck can -e t%e o-@ect o& t%e&t#
Held: As may -e leaned &rom t%e a&orementioned Articles o& t%e Re(ised Penal Code) t/e
&e0so'al &0o&e0t1 su23ect o4 t/e t/e4t 5ust /a6e so5e 6alue" as t/e 7'te't7o'
o4 t/e accused 7s to gain 40o5 t/e t/7'8 stole'# $%is is &"rt%er -olstered -y Article
699) w%ere t%e law pro(ides t%at t%e penalty to -e imposed on t%e acc"sed is dependent
on t%e (al"e o& t%e t%in stolen#
In t%is case) petitioner "nlaw&"lly took t%e postdated c%eck -elonin to ?ea 7oam) -"t
t%e same was apparently wit%o"t (al"e) as it was s"-se1"ently dis%onored# $%"s) t%e
1"estion arises on w%et%er t%e crime o& 1"ali&ied t%e&t was act"ally prod"ced# $%e Co"rt
m"st resol(e t%e iss"e in t%e neati(e#
Intod v. Court of Appeals is %i%ly instr"cti(e and applica-le to t%e present case# In
Intod (see doctrines laid out in Intod)) t%e Co"rt went on to i(e an e4ample o& an
o&&ense t%at in(ol(ed &act"al impossi-ility) i.e.) a man p"ts %is %and in t%e coat pocket
o& anot%er wit% t%e intention to steal t%e latter<s wallet) -"t ets not%in since t%e
pocket is empty#
'erein petitioner<s case is closely akin to t%e a-o(e e4ample o& &act"al impossi-ility i(en
in Intod. In t%is case) petitioner per&ormed all t%e acts to cons"mmate t%e crime o&
1"ali&ied t%e&t) w%ic% is a crime aainst property# Petitioner<s e(il intent cannot -e
denied) as t%e mere act o& "nlaw&"lly takin t%e c%eck meant &or ?ea 7oam s%owed %er
intent to ain or -e "n@"stly enric%ed# *ere it not &or t%e &act t%at t%e c%eck -o"nced)
s%e wo"ld %a(e recei(ed t%e &ace (al"e t%ereo&) w%ic% was not ri%t&"lly %ers#
$%ere&ore) it was only d"e to t%e e4traneo"s circ"mstance o& t%e c%eck -ein "n&"nded)
a &act "nknown to petitioner at t%e time) t%at pre(ented t%e crime &rom -ein prod"ced#
$%e t%in "nlaw&"lly taken -y petitioner t"rned o"t to -e a-sol"tely wort%less) -eca"se
t%e c%eck was e(ent"ally dis%onored) and ?ea 7oam %ad recei(ed t%e cas% to replace
t%e (al"e o& said dis%onored c%eck#
$%e &act t%at petitioner was later entrapped recei(in t%e P5)999#99 marked money)
w%ic% s%e t%o"%t was t%e cas% replacement &or t%e dis%onored c%eck) is o& no moment#
$%e Co"rt %eld in Valenzuela v. People

t%at "nder t%e de&inition o& t%e&t in Article 69C o&
t%e Re(ised Penal Code t%ere is only one operati(e act o& e4ec"tion -y t%e actor in(ol(ed
in t%e&t t%e takin o& personal property o& anot%er#D As o4 t/e t75e t/at &et7t7o'e0
too9 &ossess7o' o4 t/e c/ec9 5ea't 4o0 e8a Foa5" s/e /ad &e04o05ed all t/e
acts to co'su55ate t/e c075e o4 t/e4t" /ad 7t 'ot 2ee' 75&oss72le o4
acco5&l7s/5e't 7' t/7s case# +-(io"sly) t%e plan to con(ince >a-y A1"ino to i(e
cas% as replacement &or t%e c%eck was %atc%ed only a&ter t%e c%eck %ad -een
dis%onored -y t%e drawee -ank# Since t%e crime o& t%e&t is not a contin"in o&&ense)
petitioner<s act o& recei(in t%e cas% replacement s%o"ld not -e considered as a
contin"ation o& t%e t%e&t# At most) t%e &act t%at petitioner was ca"%t recei(in t%e
marked money was merely corro-oratin e(idence to strent%en proo& o& %er intent to
ain#
?oreo(er) t%e &act t%at petitioner &"rt%er planned to %a(e t%e dis%onored c%eck replaced
wit% cas% -y its iss"er is a di&&erent and separate &ra"d"lent sc%eme# En&ort"nately)
since said sc%eme was not incl"ded or co(ered -y t%e alleations in t%e In&ormation) t%e
Co"rt cannot prono"nce @"dment on t%e acc"sed5 ot%erwise) it wo"ld (iolate t%e d"e
process cla"se o& t%e Constit"tion# I& at all) t%at &ra"d"lent sc%eme co"ld %a(e -een
anot%er possi-le so"rce o& criminal lia-ility#
I, AIF* +7 $'F 7+RF:+I,:) t%e petition is GRANTED# $%e ;ecision o& t%e Co"rt o&
Appeals) are ODIFIED# Petitioner :emma $# 8acinto is &o"nd G(I$T) o& an
I#O%%I:$E CRIE as de&ined and penaliGed in Articles /) pararap% 2) and 59 o& t%e
Re(ised Penal Code) respecti(ely# Petitioner is sentenced to s"&&er t%e penalty o& si4 (H)
mont%s o& arrresto mayor) and to pay t%e costs#
PEOPLE vs ILIGAN
FACTS: At around 2 in the morning Esmeraldo Quinones and his companions Zaldy
Asis and Felix Lukban were walking home from barangay to! "omingo after attending a
barrio fiesta! #n the way they met the accused Fernando $ligan and his nephew Edmundo
Asis and %uan &acandog! Edmundo Asis pushed them aside prompting Zaldy Asis to box
him! Felix 'uickly said that they had no desire to fight! (pon seeing his nephew fall)
Fernando $ligan drew from his back a bolo and hacked Zaldy but missed!
*errified the trio ran) pursued by the three accused! *hey ran for a good while and
e+en passed the house of Quinones) when they noticed that they were no longer being
chased the three decided to head back to Quinones house! #n the way back the three
accused suddenly emerged from the road side) Fernando $ligan then hacked Quinones %r!
on the forehead with his bolo causing him to fall down! Felix and Zaldy ran! (pon
returning they saw that Quinones %r! was already dead with his head busted!
*he postmortem examination report and the death certificate indicates that the
+ictim died of , shock and massi+e cerebral hemorrhages due to +ehicular accident!-
ISSUE: .hether or not the accused are liable for the +ictim/s death gi+en that it was due
to a +ehicular accident and not the hacking!
HELD: YES. .e are con+inced beyond perad+enture that indeed after Quinones) %r! had
fallen from the bolo hacking perpetrated by $ligan) he was run o+er by a +ehicle! *his
finding) howe+er) does not in any way exonerate $ligan from liability for the death of
Quinones %r! *his being under A0* 1 of the 023 which states that criminal liability shall
be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended!
*he essential re'uisites of Art 1 are4 that an intentional felony has been committed and
that the wrong done to the aggrie+ed party be the direct natural and logical conse'uence
of the felony committed by the offender.
$t is held that the essential elements are present in this case! *he intentional felony
committed was the hacking of the head of Quinones the fact that it was considered
superficial by the physician is immaterial! *he location of the wound intended to do away
with him!
*he hacking incident happened on the national highway where +ehicles pass any
moment) the hacking blow recei+ed by Quinones weakened him and was run o+er by a
+ehicle! *he hacking by $ligan is thus deemed as the proximate cause of the +ictim/s
death!
$ligan is held liable for homicide absent any 'ualifying circumstances
Impossible Crime
SULPICIO INTOD +s!HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: $n the morning of February 1) 5676) ulpicio $ntod) %orge 2angasian) antos
*ubio and A+elino "aligdig went to al+ador &andaya8s house in 9atugasan) Lope:
%aena) &isamis #ccidental and asked him to go with them to the house of ;ernardina
2alangpangan! *hereafter) &andaya and $ntod) 2angasian) *ubio and "aligdig had a
meeting with Aniceto "umalagan! <e told &andaya that he wanted 2alangpangan to be
killed because of a land dispute between them and that &andaya should accompany the
four =1> men) otherwise) he would also be killed!
At about 5?4?? o8clock in the e+ening of the same day) 2etitioner) &andaya) 2angasian)
*ubio and "aligdig) all armed with firearms) arri+ed at 2alangpangan8s house in
9atugasan) Lope: %aena) &isamis #ccidental! At the instance of his companions)
&andaya pointed the location of 2alangpangan8s bedroom! *hereafter) 2etitioner)
2angasian) *ubio and "aligdig fired at said room! $t turned out) howe+er) that
2alangpangan was in another 3ity and her home was then occupied by her son@in@law and
his family! Ao one was in the room when the accused fired the shots! Ao one was hit by
the gun fire!
2etitioner and his companions were positi+ely identified by witnesses! #ne witness
testified that before the fi+e men left the premises) they shouted4 B.e will kill you =the
witness> and especially ;ernardina 2alangpangan and we will come back if =sic> you
were not inCured
ISSUE: .hether or not said act constitutes an impossible crime
HELD: YES. *he factual situation in the case at bar present a physical impossibility
which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment! And under Article 1)
paragraph 2 of the 0e+ised 2enal 3ode) such is sufficient to make the act an impossible
crime!
*o be impossible under this clause) the act intended by the offender must be by its nature
one impossible of accomplishment! *here must be either impossibility of accomplishing
the intended act in order to 'ualify the act an impossible crime! Legal impossibility
occurs where the intended acts) e+en if completed) would not amount to a crime
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control pre+ent the consummation of the intended crime! *he case at bar
belongs to this category!

$n our Curisdiction) impossible crimes are recogni:ed! *he impossibility of accomplishing
the criminal intent is not merely a defense) but an act penali:ed by itself! Furthermore) the
phrase Binherent impossibilityB that is found in Article 1=2> of the 0e+ised 2enal 3ode
makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility
*o uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was Attempted &urder because
the absence of 2alangpangan was a super+ening cause independent of the actor8s will)
will render useless the pro+ision in Article 1) which makes a person criminally liable for
an act Bwhich would be an offense against persons or property) were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment ! ! !B $n that case all circumstances which
pre+ented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of
the actor8s will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies!
Impossible Crime
PEOPLE, +s! PABLITO DOMASIAN AND DR. SAMSON TAN
FACTS: *he e+idence of the prosecution showed that in the morning of &arch 55) 56D2)
while Enrico was walking with a classmate along 0o'ue street in the poblacion of Lope:)
Que:on) he was approached by a man who re'uested his assistance in getting his father8s
signature on a medical certificate!
Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle to 3alantipayan! Enrico
became apprehensi+e and started to cry when) instead of taking him to the hospital) the
man flagged a minibus and forced him inside) holding him firmly all the while! *he man
told him to stop crying or he would not be returned to his father!
After that the man talked to a Ceepney dri+er and handed him an en+elope addressed to
"r! Enri'ue Agra) the boy8s father! *hen they rode a tricycle) the dri+er got suspicious and
reported the matter to two barangay tanods. the tanods went after the two) omehow) the
man managed to escape) lea+ing Enrico behind! Enrico was on his way home in a
passenger Ceep when he met his parents) who were riding in the hospital ambulance and
already looking for him!

At about 541E in the afternoon of the same day) after Enrico8s return) Agra recei+ed an
en+elope containing a ransom note! *he note demanded 25 million for the release of
Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be killed! Agra thought the handwriting
in the note was familiar! After comparing it with some records in the hospital) he ga+e the
note to the police) which referred it to the A;$ for examination!
3
*he test showed that it bad been written by "r! amson *an!
4
#n the other hand) Enrico
was shown a folder of pictures in the police station so be could identify the man who had
detained him) and he pointed to the picture of 2ablito "omasian!
"omasian and *an were subse'uently charged with the crime of kidnapping with serious
illegal detention in the 0egional *rial 3ourt of Que:on
ISSUE:
5> whether or not the act constitutes a crime of kidnapping under art 2F7
2> whether or not the sending of the ransom note was an impossible crime
HELD:
1) YES! 9idnapping may consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure but
also in detaining him or depri+ing him in any manner of his liberty
2) NO. E+en before the ransom note was recei+ed) the crime of kidnapping with
serious illegal detention had already been committed! *he act cannot be
considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of its
accomplishment or the employment of inade'uate or ineffecti+e means! *he
deli+ery of the ransom note after the rescue of the +ictim did not extinguish the
offense) which had already been consummated when "omasian depri+ed Enrico
of his liberty
&oreo+er the trial court correctly held that conspiracy was pro+ed by the act of
"omasian in detaining EnricoG the writing of the ransom note by *anG and its
deli+ery by "omasian to Agra! *hese acts were complementary to each other and
geared toward the attainment of the common ultimate obCecti+e
*he moti+e for the offense is not difficult to disco+er! According to Agra) *an approached
him six days before the incident happened and re'uested a loan of at least 25E)???!??!
Agra said he had no funds at that moment and *an did not belie+e him) angrily saying
that Agra could e+en raise a million pesos if he really wanted to help!
56
*he refusal
ob+iously triggered the plan to kidnap Enrico and demand 25 million for his release!
Urbano vs IAC
Filomeno Urban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at Barangay Anonang
his palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal
there he saw Marcelo Javier and milio rfe cutting grass. !e as"ed them who was responsible
for the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano then got
angry and demanded that Javier pay for his soa"ed palay
Urbano who hac"ed him again hitting Javier on the left leg with the bac" portion of said bolo#
causing a swelling on said leg. $hen Urbano tried to hac" and inflict further in%ury# his daughter
embraced and prevented him from hac"ing Javier.
rfes together with Javier went to the police station of &an Fabian to report the incident. As
suggested by Corporal 'orio# Javier was brought to a physician
Urbano promised to pay ()**.** for the medical e+penses of Javier.
on ,ovember -.# -/0*# Javier was rushed to the ,a1areth 2eneral !ospital
had loc"%aw and was having convulsions
caused by tetanus to+in.
In an information dated April -*# -/0-# Filomeno Urbano was charged with the crime of homicide
before the then Circuit Criminal Court of 3agupan City# 'hird Judicial 3istrict.
'he appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and4or new trial
motion was denied. !ence# this petition
lower courts ruled that Javier5s death was the natural and logical conse6uence of Urbano5s
unlawful act.
Appellate court ruled that 'he claim of appellant that there was an efficient cause which
supervened from the time the deceased was wounded to the time of his death# which covers a
period of 78 days
# the pro+imate cause of the victim5s death was the wound which got infected with tetanus. And
the settled rule in this %urisdiction is that an accused is liable for all the conse6uences of his
unlawful act.
Appellant5s allegation that the pro+imate cause of the victim5s death was due to his own
negligence in going bac" to wor" without his wound being properly healed# and lately# that he
went to catch fish in dirty irrigation canals
'he &C rulethat 3r. Mario Meneses found no tetanus in the in%ury# and that Javier got infected
with tetanus when after two wee"s he returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with his
bare hands e+posing the wound to harmful elements li"e tetanus germs.
9that cause# which# in natural and continuous se6uence# unbro"en by any efficient intervening
cause# produces the in%ury# and without which the result would not have occurred
'he infection was# therefore# distinct and foreign to the crime
'he rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and loical conse!uence of t"e
#ounds inflicted u$on "i% &' t"e accused.
medical findings# however# 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
And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which
result in in%ury because of the prior defective condition# such subse6uent act or condition is the
pro+imate cause.9
AC:UI''3
3ase "igest4 Amado Al+arado Harcia +s! 2eople of the 2hilippines
H!0! Ao! 5756E5 2D August 2??6
FA3*4
*he Fo:es were ha+ing a drinking spree at their apartment when 3hy asked them to 'uiet
down to which Harcia commented that 3hy was being arrogant and that one day he
would lay a hand on him! *wo days later) the group decided to drink at a store owned by
3hy/s sister) Es'uibel! 3hy was about to come out of his house and upon being
summoned) Harcia suddenly punched him! 3hy continued to parry the blows and when
he found an opportunity to escape) he ran home and phoned his wife to call the police
regarding the mauling! <e also complained of difficulty in breathing! <e was found later
unconscious on the kitchen floor) sali+ating!
3ause of death is heart attack to which Harcia appeals that the inCuries he caused were not
as +iolent in nature as to ha+e caused the death of 3hy! Harcia pleaded not guilty to the
crime of homicide! *he autopsy doctor confirms that the boxing and the striking of the
bottle beer on the +ictim could not ha+e caused any direct physical effect to cause the
heart attack if the +ictim/s heart is healthy! .hat could ha+e caused said heart attack is
the +ictims emotions concerning the +iolence inflicted upon him!
$(E4
.hether the circumstance of ha+ing no intention to commit so gra+e a wrong as that
committed should be appreciated
0(L$AH4
*he circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so gra+e an e+il as the death of the
+ictim does not exempt him from criminal liability! ince he deliberately committed an
act prohibited by law) said condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article
5I=I> of the 0e+ised 2enal 3ode! Ae+ertheless) said circumstance must be appreciated in
fa+our of the petitioner! *he fact that the physical inCuries he inflicted on the +ictim
could not ha+e naturally and logically caused the actual death of the +ictim) if the latter/s
heart is in good condition!
3onsidering this mitigating circumstance) imposable penalty should be in the minimum
period) that is) reclusion temporal in its minimum period! Applying the $ndeterminate
entence Law) the trial court properly imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty
of ten =5?> years of prision mayor) as minimum) to fourteen =51> years and eight =D>
months of reclusion temporal as maximum!
People v. Acuram
G.R. No. 117954(April 27, 2000)
The appellant shot the victim who later died. After charges were fled and his
commanding ofcer was told of the incident, he was ordered not to leave camp,
where he surrendered.
HELD:
Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused
to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either
because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and
epense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. !n this case, it was
appellant"s commanding ofcer who surrendered him to the custody of the court.
#eing restrained by one"s superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to
the investigating authorities concerned, is not tantamount to voluntary surrender
as contemplated by law.
Case Digest on People v. Acuram G.R. No. 11795!April "7# "$$$%
*he appellant shot the +ictim who later died! After charges were filed and his
commanding officer was told of the incident) he was ordered not to lea+e camp) where he
surrendered!
<EL"4
.hether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of +oluntary surrender
*he essence of +oluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to gi+e
himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to sa+e them the trouble and expense necessarily
incurred in his search and capture! $n this case) it was appellant/s commanding officer
who surrendered him to the custody of the court! ;eing restrained by one/s superiors to
stay within the camp without submitting to the in+estigating authorities concerned) is not
tantamount to +oluntary surrender as contemplated by law!
2eople + 3agoco
H0 Ao! L@IDE55
5?JFJ56II
%ustice Kickers
Facts of the 3ase4
#n %uly 21) 56I2) Lu Lon and Lu Lee) father and son) stopped total on the sidewalk! .hile they
were talking) a man passed back and forth behind Lu Lon once or twice) and when Lu Lee was
about to lea+e his father) the man that had been passing back and forth =Francisco 3agoco>
approached Lu Lon from behind and suddenly and without warning struck Lu Lon with his fist on
the back part of the head! 3agoco immediately ran away! Lu Lee and two other witnesses pursued
him and then lost sight of him! *he blow caused Lu Lon to fall on the ground! As a conse'uence
of which he suffered a lacerated wound on the scalp and a fissured fracture on the left occipital
region which were necessarily mortal and caused his immediate death! *he next day) Lu Lee
promptly reported the incident to the police! 3agoco was later apprehended and identified by Lu
Lee as his fatherMs assailant!
$ssue4 .hether or not the accused is guilty of murder
<eld4 Les!
0atio4
As to the contention that the deceased would ha+e fallen on his face if he had been struck on the
back of the head) the expert testimony shows that in such a case) a person instincti+ely makes an
effort to regain his balance! As a result) the deceased may ha+e fallen downwards! Further) the
sidewalks almost in+ariably slop towards the pa+ement so that when the deceased straightened
up) he naturally tended to fall backwards! *he accused struck the deceased on the back of the
head because it would ha+e been necessary for him to go between the deceased and Lu Lee who
were then con+ersing!
*here is treachery when the offender commits a crime employing means) methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tends directly to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended part might make!
$n order that a person may be criminally liable for felony different from that which he proposed to
commit) these two re'uisites should be present4
5! that a felony was committed
2! *hat the wrong done to the aggrie+ed person be the direct conse'uence of the crime
committed by the offender!
$n the case at bar) there is nothing to indicate that Lu LonMs death was due to some extraneous
case! $t was clearly the direct conse'uence of the accusedMs felonious ac t and the fact that he did
not intend to cause so great an inCury does not relie+e him from the conse'uence of his unlawful
act) but is merely a mitigating circumstance! ince the accused committed the felony with
treachery) he is guilty of murder!