EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5070 December 29, 1952

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintif-Appellant, vs.
PEDRO PETILLA,Defendant-Appellee.
Ofce of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Jaime de los Angeles for
appellant.
Arsenio A. Andaya for appellee.
BATISTA ANGELO, J.!
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon dated
August , !"#!, sustaining the motion to $uash interposed %& the accused in
criminal case No. !'(# and dismissing the case )ith costs de ofcio and the
cancellation of the %ond *led %& him for his provisional release.
+n August ,!, !"-", an information charging .edro .etilla )ith the crime of slight
ph&sical in/uries )as *led in the 0ustice of the .eace Court of 1umaca, Quezon
province. 2pon petition of %oth parties, this case )as heard %& the 0ustice of the
.eace /ointl& )ith another for frustrated homicide *led against the same accused.
3uring the hearing, the 0ustice of the .eace found that the in/uries su4ered %& the
o4ended part& )ould re$uire more than thirt& 5,'6 da&s to heal and so, %elieving
that the case )as %e&ond his /urisdiction, he for)arded said case, together )ith that
of frustrated homicide, to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings. +n
3ecem%er !(, !"-", the provincial *scal amended the information charging the
accused )ith serious ph&sical in/uries and pra&ing that the /ustice of the peace %e
ordered to conduct the corresponding preliminar& investigation 5criminal case No.
!'78'6. This petition )as favora%l& acted upon. The accused having )aived his
right to preliminar& investigation, the case )as returned to the Court of First
Instance )here on Fe%ruar& 88, !"#', the accused *led a motion to $uash alleging,
among other grounds, that if the case %e continued he )ould %e placed in /eopard&.
+n Fe%ruar& 8, !"#', the court granted the motion to $uash and dismissed the
case )ith costs de ofcio.
9is motion for reconsideration having %een denied, the provincial *scal, on :arch
88, !"#', moved that the case %e returned to the 0ustice of the .eace Court of
1umaca for trial on the merits on the original information contending that said
0ustice of the .eace committed a mista;e in failing to act upon the erroneous %elief
that he had no /urisdiction over the o4ense charged. This motion )as favora%l&
acted upon and the record of the case )as sent %ac; to the 0ustice of the .eace. +n
0une !(, !"#', ho)ever, the provincial *scal as;ed for the provisional dismissal of
the case alleging that on that same date he )as *ling in the Court of First Instance
an information for serious ph&sical in/uries, and accordingl& the 0ustice of the .eace
dismissed the case provisionall& and for)arded the record to the Court of First
Instance.
+n 0une !(, !"#', as a%ove stated, a ne) case )as initiated in the Court of First
Instance of Quezon )ith the *ling of a ne) information for serious ph&sical in/uries
5criminal case No. !'(#6. +n 0ul& (, !"#', the case )as sent to the 0ustice of the
.eace for preliminar& investigation. After this )as held the record )as for)arded to
the Court of First Instance, and on 0ul& 7, !"#!, the accused again *led a motion to
$uash on the follo)ing grounds<
!. That the a%ove=entitled case has alread& %een $uashed %& this 9onora%le Court
in its order dated Fe%ruar& 8, !"#' 5Anne> A6?
8. That if the prosecution has not %een satis*ed )ith the order of the Court of 8
Fe%ruar& !"#', he should have appealed from said order )ithin the time allo)ed %&
la)?
,. That the prosecution has e>ceeded and gravel& a%used its discretion in reviving
once again a case that has alread& %een $uashed %& the Court there%& initiating
and encouraging )hat the court a%hors, that of multiplicit& of suits and endless
litigations? and
-. That it is su%mitted that @rulings and orders of this 9onora%le Court must at least
%e %inding upon itself, 5.age ,7, criminal case record No. !'(#.6
+n August , !"#!, the court sustained the motion and dismissed the case holding
in part as follo)s<
It is the opinion of the court that the order of Fe%ruar& 8,!"#', has %ecome *nal
and e>ecutor&. If the prosecution in criminal case No. !'78' %elieved that this court
had committed an error in ordering that the information in said case %e $uashed,
)ith costs de ofcio, it should have appealed from said order )ithin the period
prescri%ed %& the Aules of Court. Not having done so, this court no) is a%solutel&
po)erless to disregard said *nal order and proceed )ith this criminal case No.
!'(# for the same crime )hich is charged in criminal case No. !'78'. There is res
ad!dicata. 5.age -, criminal case record No. !'(#.6
The case is no) %efore us %& virtue of the appeal interposed %& the Bolicitor
1eneral.
This case is unfortunate in vie) of a series of mista;es committed %& the oCcials
)ho intervened in its prosecution. The *rst error committed refers to the order of
dismissal entered %& the lo)er court on Fe%ruar& 8, !"#', )herein the court
$uashed the case on the ground that the *ling of the amended information charging
the accused )ith serious ph&sical in/uries constituted dou%le /eopard& )hich %arred
the 1overnment from prosecuting it. This is a mista;e. The charge contained in the
original information )as for the slight ph&sical in/uries %ecause at that time the
*scal %elieved that the )ound su4ered %& the o4ended part& )ould re$uire medical
attendance onl& for a period of eight da&s, %ut )hen the preliminar& investigation
)as conducted the 0ustice of the .eace found that the )ound )ould not heal until a
period of thirt& da&s, and so he for)arded the case to the Court of First Instance for
further action. It, therefore, appears that the act )hich converted the crime into a
more serious one had supervened after the *ling of the original information. And
this supervening event can still %e the su%/ect of amendment or of a ne) charge
)ithout necessaril& placing the accused in dou%le /eopard&, as held %& this court in
the recent case of People "s. #anolong
"
1.A. No. D=88. Baid the court<
The Constitution en/oins that @no person shall %e t)ice put in /eopard& or punished
for the same o4ense.@ 5Art. III, section !8'.6 In an attempt to implement this
constitutional mandate, the Aules of Court 5Aule !!,, section "6 ma;e conviction or
ac$uittal of the accused a %ar to his su%se$uent prosecution, not onl& for the same
o4ense, %ut also @for an& o4ense )hich necessaril& includes or is necessaril&
included in the o4ense charged in the former complaint or information.@ In the
present case there is no $uestion that the o4ense of serious ph&sical in/uries
charged in the last information necessaril& includes the lesser o4ense charged in
the *rst complaint and of )hich the accused )as convicted in the /ustice of the
peace court, and there should li;e)ise %e no $uestion that, )ere )e to follo) the
doctrine laid do)n %& this court in People "s. $aro%, -' +4. 1az., ,-, and
reiterated in People "s. &illasis, -7 +4. 1az., 87 )e )ould have no alternative %ut
to dismiss the present appeal. 9o)ever, this court in its recent decision in the case
of #elo "s. People' et al., -( +4. 1az., -7,!, has alread& repealed the doctrine laid
do)n in the Taro; case as contrar& to the real meaning of dou%le /eopard& as
intended %& the Constitution and the Aules of Court and @o%no>ious to the
administration of /ustice,@ and has reverted to the rule that @)here after the *rst
prosecution a ne) fact supervenes for )hich the defendant is responsi%le, )hich
changes the character of the o4ense and, together )ith the facts e>isting at the
time, constitutes a ne) and distinct o4ense@ 5!# Am. 0ur. 776, the accused cannot
%e said in second /eopard& if indicted for the ne) o4ense.@ That rule applies to the
present case )here, after the *rst prosecution for a lesser crime, ne) facts have
supervened )hich together )ith those alread& in e>istence at the time of the *rst
prosecution, have made the o4ense graver and the penalt& *rst imposed legall&
inade$uate.
But the mista;e )hich in the opinion of the court has th)arted the chance of the
prosecution is the failure of the provincial *scal to appeal from the order of the
lo)er court of Fe%ruar& 8, !"#'. 9ad he done so the error committed )ould have
%een remedied. Instead, he as;ed for the return of the case to the 0ustice of the
.eace Court for trial on the merits under the original information. Buch a step )as of
no useful purpose, a fact )hich he later realized )hen he *led a motion for
provisional dismissal. Another mista;e he committed )as to *le a ne) information
for the same o4ense 5criminal case No. !'(#6 )hich )as properl& dismissed on the
ground of res !dicata. It is true that the order of Fe%ruar& 8, !"#', )as
erroneousl& entered for reasons )hich perhaps might %e ascri%ed to the conEicting
decisions that had %een rendered regarding the application of the principle of
dou%le /eopard&, %ut the failure of the *scal )as unfortunate as it rendered said
order *nal and e>ecutor&. Fhether rightl& or )rongl& said order stands and cannot
no) %e set aside or rendered ine4ective. That order is %inding upon the parties.
That order has the e4ect of res !dicata upon the 1overnment.
Fherefore, the order appealed from is aCrmed, )ithout costs.
Paras' (.J.' Pa)lo' *engzon' Padilla' J!go and +a)rador' JJ.' conc!r.
Endnotes<
G # .hil., 8".
Aepu%lic of the .hilippines
SPRE#E $ORT
:anila
EN BANC
1.A. No. D=!'!87 +cto%er 88, !"#(
BAD23 HIDDAN2EHA H3A. 3E BATACDAN and the minors N+A:A, D2IHI:IN3A,
EDENITA, +BCAA and ADFAE3+ BATACDAN, represented %& their Natural guardian,
BAD23 HIDDAN2EHA H3A. 3E BATACDAN, plainti4s=appellants,
vs.
#ARIANO #EDINA, defendant=appellant.
+ope ,. Adriano' ,mman!el Andamo and Jose -. .rancisco for plaintifs-appellants.
.ort!nato Jose for defendant and appellant.
#ONTE#A%OR, J.!
Bhortl& after midnight, on Beptem%er !,, !"#8 %us no. ,' of the :edina
Transportation, operated %& its o)ner defendant :ariano :edina under a certi*cate
of pu%lic convenience, left the to)n of Amadeo, Cavite, on its )a& to .asa& Cit&,
driven %& its regular chau4eur, Conrado Ba&lon. There )ere a%out eighteen
passengers, including the driver and conductor. Among the passengers )ere 0uan
Bataclan, seated %eside and to the right of the driver, Felipe Dara, sated to the right
of Bataclan, another passenger apparentl& from the Hisa&an Islands )hom the
)itnesses /ust called Hisa&a, apparentl& not ;no)ing his name, seated in the left
side of the driver, and a )oman named Natalia Hillanueva, seated /ust %ehind the
four last mentioned. At a%out 8<'' oJcloc; that same morning, )hile the %us )as
running )ithin the /urisdiction of Imus, Cavite, one of the front tires %urst and the
vehicle %egan to zig=zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right side of the road
and turned turtle. Bome of the passengers managed to leave the %us the %est )a&
the& could, others had to %e helped or pulled out, )hile the three passengers seated
%eside the driver, named Bataclan, Dara and the Hisa&an and the )oman %ehind
them named Natalia Hillanueva, could not get out of the overturned %us. Bome of
the passengers, after the& had clam%ered up to the road, heard groans and moans
from inside the %us, particularl&, shouts for help from Bataclan and Dara, )ho said
the& could not get out of the %us. There is nothing in the evidence to sho) )hether
or not the passengers alread& free from the )rec;, including the driver and the
conductor, made an& attempt to pull out or e>tricate and rescue the four
passengers trapped inside the vehicle, %ut calls or shouts for help )ere made to the
houses in the neigh%orhood. After half an hour, came a%out ten men, one of them
carr&ing a lighted torch made of %am%oo )ith a )ic; on one end, evidentl& fueled
)ith petroleum. These men presuma%l& approach the overturned %us, and almost
immediatel&, a *erce *re started, %urning and all %ut consuming the %us, including
the four passengers trapped inside it. It )ould appear that as the %us overturned,
gasoline %egan to lea; and escape from the gasoline tan; on the side of the chassis,
spreading over and permeating the %od& of the %us and the ground under and
around it, and that the lighted torch %rought %& one of the men )ho ans)ered the
call for help set it on *re.
That same da&, the charred %odies of the four deemed passengers inside the %us
)ere removed and dul& identi*ed that of 0uan Bataclan. B& reason of his death, his
)ido), Balud Hillanueva, in her name and in %ehalf of her *ve minor children,
%rought the present suit to recover from :ariano :edina compensator&, moral, and
e>emplar& damages and attorne&Js fees in the total amount of .(,!#'. After trial,
the Court of First Instance of Cavite a)arded .!,''' to the plainti4s plus .7'' as
attorne&Js fee, plus .!'', the value of the merchandise %eing carried %& Bataclan to
.asa& Cit& for sale and )hich )as lost in the *re. The plainti4s and the defendants
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, %ut the latter endorsed the appeal to
us %ecause of the value involved in the claim in the complaint.
+ur ne) Civil Code ampl& provides for the responsi%ilit& of common carrier to its
passengers and their goods. For purposes of reference, )e are reproducing the
pertinent codal provisions<
AAT. !(,,. Common carriers, from the nature of their %usiness and for reasons
of pu%lic polic&, are %ound to o%serve e>traordinar& diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safet& of the passengers transported %& them,
according to all the circumstances of each case.
Buch e>traordinar& diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further e>pressed
in articles !(,-, !(,#, and !(-#, Nos. #, 7, and (, )hile the e>tra ordinar&
diligence for the safet& of the passengers is further set forth in articles !(## and
!(#7.
AAT. !(##. A common carrier is %ound to carr& the passengers safel& as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of ver&
cautious persons, )ith a due regard for all the circumstances.
AAT. !(#7. In case of death of or in/uries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have %een at fault or to have acted negligentl&, unless the& prove
that the& o%served e>traordinar& diligence as prescri%ed in articles !(,, and
!(##
AAT. !(#". Common carriers are lia%le for the death of or in/uries to passengers
through the negligence or )illful acts of the formerJs emplo&ees, although such
emplo&ees ma& have acted %e&ond the scope of their authorit& or in violation of
the order of the common carriers.
This lia%ilit& of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that the&
e>ercised all the diligence of a good father of a famil& in the selection and
supervision of their emplo&ees.
AAT. !(7,. A common carrier responsi%le for in/uries su4ered %& a passenger on
account of the )illful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if
the common carrierJs emplo&ees through the e>ercise of the diligence of a good
father of a famil& could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
Fe agree )ith the trial court that the case involves a %reach of contract of
transportation for hire, the :edina Transportation having underta;en to carr&
Bataclan safel& to his destination, .asa& Cit&. Fe also agree )ith the trial court that
there )as negligence on the part of the defendant, through his agent, the driver
Ba&lon. There is evidence to sho) that at the time of the %lo) out, the %us )as
speeding, as testi*ed to %& one of the passengers, and as sho)n %& the fact that
according to the testimon& of the )itnesses, including that of the defense, from the
point )here one of the front tires %urst up to the canal )here the %us overturned
after zig=zaging, there )as a distance of a%out !#' meters. The chau4eur, after the
%lo)=out, must have applied the %ra;es in order to stop the %us, %ut %ecause of the
velocit& at )hich the %us must have %een running, its momentum carried it over a
distance of !#' meters %efore it fell into the canal and turned turtle.
There is no $uestion that under the circumstances, the defendant carrier is lia%le.
The onl& $uestion is to )hat degree. The trial court )as of the opinion that the
pro>imate cause of the death of Bataclan )as not the overturning of the %us, %ut
rather, the *re that %urned the %us, including himself and his co=passengers )ho
)ere una%le to leave it? that at the time the *re started, Bataclan, though he must
have su4ered ph&sical in/uries, perhaps serious, )as still alive, and so damages
)ere a)arded, not for his death, %ut for the ph&sical in/uries su4ered %& him. Fe
disagree. A satisfactor& de*nition of pro>imate cause is found in Holume ,, pages
7"#=7"7 of American /urisprudence, cited %& plainti4s=appellants in their %rief. It is
as follo)s<
. . . Jthat cause, )hich, in natural and continuous se$uence, un%ro;en %& an&
eCcient intervening cause, produces the in/ur&, and )ithout )hich the result
)ould not have occurred.J And more comprehensivel&, Jthe pro>imate legal
cause is that acting *rst and producing the in/ur&, either immediatel& or %&
setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of
events, each having a close causal connection )ith its immediate predecessor,
the *nal event in the chain immediatel& e4ecting the in/ur& as a natural and
pro%a%le result of the cause )hich *rst acted, under such circumstances that
the person responsi%le for the *rst event should, as an ordinar& prudent and
intelligent person, have reasona%le ground to e>pect at the moment of his act
or default that an in/ur& to some person might pro%a%l& result therefrom.
It ma& %e that ordinaril&, )hen a passenger %us overturns, and pins do)n a
passenger, merel& causing him ph&sical in/uries, if through some event, une>pected
and e>traordinar&, the overturned %us is set on *re, sa&, %& lightning, or if some
high)a&men after looting the vehicle sets it on *re, and the passenger is %urned to
death, one might still contend that the pro>imate cause of his death )as the *re
and not the overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case under the
circumstances o%taining in the same, )e do not hesitate to hold that the pro>imate
cause )as the overturning of the %us, this for the reason that )hen the vehicle
turned not onl& on its side %ut completel& on its %ac;, the lea;ing of the gasoline
from the tan; )as not unnatural or une>pected? that the coming of the men )ith a
lighted torch )as in response to the call for help, made not onl& %& the passengers,
%ut most pro%a%l&, %& the driver and the conductor themselves, and that %ecause it
)as dar; 5a%out 8<,' in the morning6, the rescuers had to carr& a light )ith them,
and coming as the& did from a rural area )here lanterns and Eashlights )ere not
availa%le? and )hat )as more natural than that said rescuers should innocentl&
approach the vehicle to e>tend the aid and e4ect the rescue re$uested from them.
In other )ords, the coming of the men )ith a torch )as to %e e>pected and )as a
natural se$uence of the overturning of the %us, the trapping of some of its
passengers and the call for outside help. Fhat is more, the %urning of the %us can
also in part %e attri%uted to the negligence of the carrier, through is driver and its
conductor. According to the )itness, the driver and the conductor )ere on the road
)al;ing %ac; and forth. The&, or at least, the driver should and must have ;no)n
that in the position in )hich the overturned %us )as, gasoline could and must have
lea;ed from the gasoline tan; and soa;ed the area in and around the %us, this aside
from the fact that gasoline )hen spilled, speciall& over a large area, can %e smelt
and directed even from a distance, and &et neither the driver nor the conductor
)ould appear to have cautioned or ta;en steps to )arn the rescuers not to %ring the
lighted torch too near the %us. Baid negligence on the part of the agents of the
carrier come under the codal provisions a%ove=reproduced, particularl&, Articles
!(,,, !(#" and !(7,.
As regard the damages to )hich plainti4s are entitled, considering the earning
capacit& of the deceased, as )ell as the other elements entering into a damage
a)ard, )e are satis*ed that the amount of BIK T9+2BAN3 5.7,'''6 .EB+B )ould
constitute satisfactor& compensation, this to include compensator&, moral, and
other damages. Fe also %elieve that plainti4s are entitled to attorne&Js fees, and
assessing the legal services rendered %& plainti4sJ attorne&s not onl& in the trial
court, %ut also in the course of the appeal, and not losing sight of the a%le %riefs
prepared %& them, the attorne&Js fees ma& )ell %e *>ed at EI19T 92N3AE3 5.''6
.EB+B for the loss of merchandise carried %& the deceased in the %us, is ade$uate
and )ill not %e distur%ed.
There is one phase of this case )hich distur%s if it does not shoc; us. According to
the evidence, one of the passengers )ho, %ecause of the in/uries su4ered %& her,
)as hospitalized, and )hile in the hospital, she )as visited %& the defendant
:ariano :edina, and in the course of his visit, she overheard him spea;ing to one of
his %us inspectors, telling said inspector to have the tires of the %us changed
immediatel& %ecause the& )ere alread& old, and that as a matter of fact, he had
%een telling the driver to change the said tires, %ut that the driver did not follo) his
instructions. If this %e true, it goes to prove that the driver had not %een diligent and
had not ta;en the necessar& precautions to insure the safet& of his passengers. 9ad
he changed the tires, speciall& those in front, )ith ne) ones, as he had %een
instructed to do, pro%a%l&, despite his speeding, as )e have alread& stated, the
%lo) out )ould not have occurred. All in all, there is reason to %elieve that the
driver operated and drove his vehicle negligentl&, resulting in the death of four of
his passengers, ph&sical in/uries to others, and the complete loss and destruction of
their goods, and &et the criminal case against him, on motion of the *scal and )ith
his consent, )as provisionall& dismissed, %ecause according to the *scal, the
)itnesses on )hose testimon& he )as %an;ing to support the complaint, either
failed or appear or )ere reluctant to testif&. But the record of the case %efore us
sho)s the several )itnesses, passengers, in that %us, )illingl& and unhesitatingl&
testi*ed in court to the e4ect of the said driver )as negligent. In the pu%lic interest
the prosecution of said erring driver should %e pursued, this, not onl& as a matter of
/ustice, %ut for the promotion of the safet& of passengers on pu%lic utilit& %uses. Det
a cop& of this decision %e furnished the 3epartment of 0ustice and the .rovincial
Fiscal of Cavite.
In vie) of the foregoing, )ith the modi*cation that the damages a)arded %& the
trial court are increased from +NE T9+2BAN3 5.!,'''6 .EB+B T+ BIK T9+2BAN3
5.7,'''6 .EB+B, and from BIK 92N3AE3 .EB+B T+ EI19T 92N3AE3 5.''6 .EB+B,
for the death of Bataclan and for the attorne&Js fees, respectivel&, the decision
appealed is from here%& aCrmed, )ith costs.
Paras' (. J.' *engzon' Padilla' -eyes' A.' *a!tista Angelo' +a)rador' (oncepcion'
-eyes' J. *. +.' ,ndencia' and .eli/' JJ.' concur.
Aepu%lic of the .hilippines
SPRE#E $ORT
:anila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-&'(& #)rc* 2, 1911
THE NITED STATES, plainti4=appellee,
vs.
RAFAEL B. $ATOLI$O, defendant=appellant.
*. Po)re for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General 0ar"ey for appellee.
#ORELAND, J.<
This is an appeal from a /udgment of the Court of First Instance of the .rovince of
Caga&an, 9on. Charles A. Do) presiding, convicting the defendant of the crime of
malversation of pu%lic funds and sentencing him to t)o monthsJ imprisonment, to
perpetual dis$uali*cation to hold pu%lic oCce or pu%lic emplo&ment of an& ;ind,
and to the pa&ment of the costs.
It appears from the proofs of the prosecution that the accused as /ustice of the
peace of Baggao, .rovince of Caga&an, on the 8d da& of +cto%er, !"'", had %efore
him si>teen separate civil cases commenced %& 0uan Canillas against si>teen
distinct individuals, each one for damages resulting from a %reach of contract? that
said cases )ere all decided %& the appellant in favor of the plainti4? that each one
of the defendant in said cases appealed from the decision of the /ustice of the peace
and deposited .!7 as re$uired %& la), at the same time giving a %ond of .#', each
one of )hich )as approved %& the court? that on the !8th da& of said month the
plainti4 in said cases presented a )riting to the appellant as said /ustice of the
peace, alleging that the sureties on the said %onds )ere insolvent and later
demonstrated this to the satisfaction of the appellant? that thereupon the latter
ordered the cancellation of the said %onds and, in the same order, re$uired each of
the appellants to *le another %ond )ithin *fteen da&s, that, inasmuch as none of
the appellants in said cases presented ne) %onds )ithin the time *>ed, the plainti4
in said causes applied to the appellant, as said court, for an order declaring *nal the
/udgment entered in each of the said si>teen cases and commanding the e>ecution
of the same, at the same time as;ing that the sums deposited %& the defendants in
said actions %e attached 5so called in the record6 and delivered to him in satisfaction
of said /udgments? that the accused acceded to the petition of the plainti4, ordered
said sums attached and delivered same to the plainti4, at the same time re$uiring
of the plainti4 a %ond of .#' for each attachment, conditioned that he )ould
respond for the damages )hich should result from such attachment.
After this attachment 5so called6 the attorne& for the defendants in the said si>teen
cases presented a complaint against the appellant to the Court of First Instance, %&
virtue of )hich said court ordered that the plainti4, 0uan Canillas, deliver to the cler;
of the Court of First Instance the sums deposited %& the defendants in said actions.
Canillas o%e&ed the order of the court and made the deliver& as re$uired.
2pon these facts the Acting Attorne&=1eneral recommends the ac$uittal of the
accused. Fe are in entire accord )ith that recommendation. The case made against
the appellant lac;s man& of the essential elements re$uired %& la) to %e present in
the crime of malversation of pu%lic funds. The accused did not convert the mone& to
his o)n use or to the use of an& other person? neither did he feloniousl& permit
an&%od& else to convert it. Ever&thing he did )as done in good faith under the
%elief that he )as acting /udiciall& and correctl&. The fact that he ordered the sums,
deposited in his hands %& the defendants L appellants in the si>teen actions
referred to, attached for the %ene*t of the plainti4 in those actions, after the
appeals had %een dismissed and the /udgments in his court had %ecome *nal, and
that he delivered the said sums to the plainti4 in satisfaction of the /udgment )hich
he held in those cases, can not %e considered an appropriation or a ta;ing of said
sums )ithin the meaning of Act No. !(-'. 9e %elieved that, as presiding oCcer of
the court of /ustice of the peace, he had a perfect right under the la) to cancel the
%onds )hen it )as clearl& sho)n to him that the sureties thereon )ere insolvent, to
re$uire the *ling of ne) underta;ings, giving the parties ample time )ithin )hich to
do so, to dismiss the appeals in case said underta;ings )ere not *led, and to
declare the /udgment *nal. 9e %elieved that after said appeals had %een dismissed
and said /udgment had %ecome *nal, the sums deposited )ere su%/ect to %e applied
in pa&ment of the /udgments in the actions in )hich said sums had %een deposited
and that he )as acting /udiciall& and legall& in ma;ing such applications.
To constitute a crime, the act must, e>cept in certain crimes made such %& statute,
%e accompanied %& a criminal intent, or %& such negligence or indi4erence to dut&
or to conse$uences, as, in la), is e$uivalent to criminal intent. The ma>im is, act!s
non facit re!m' nisi mens rea L a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
performing the act complained of %e innocent.
In the case at %ar the appellant )as engaged in e>ercising the functions of a court
of /ustice of the peace. 9e had /urisdictions of the actions %efore him. 9e had a right
and it )as his dut& to re$uire the pa&ment %& each appellant of .!7, as )ell as the
giving of a proper underta;ing )ith solvent sureties. Fhile, in dismissing the
appeals and delivering the .8#7 to the plainti4 in the said cases, he ma& have
e>ceeded his authorit& as such court and passed %e&ond the limits of his /urisdiction
and po)er, a $uestion )e do not no) discuss or decide, it )as, so far as appears
from the record, at most a pure mista;e of /udgment, an error of the mind operating
upon a state of facts. 1iving the act complained of the signi*cation most
detrimental to the appellant, it, nevertheless, )as simpl& the result of the erroneous
e>ercise of the /udicial function, and not an intention to deprive an& person of his
propert& feloniousl&. 9is act had %ac; of it the purpose to do /ustice to litigants and
not to em%ezzle propert&. 9e acted that honest de%ts might %e paid to those to
)hom the& )ere legall& and /ustl& due, and not to enrich himself or another %&
criminal misappropriation. It )as an error committed %& a court, not an act done %&
a criminal=minded man. It )as a mista;e, not a crime.
It is true that a presumption of criminal intention ma& arise from proof of the
commission of a criminal act? and the general rule is that, if it is proved that the
accused committed the criminal act charged, it )ill %e presumed that the act )as
done )ith criminal intention, and that it is for the accused to re%ut this presumption.
But it must %e %orne in mind that the act from )hich such presumption springs must
%e a criminal act. In the case %efore us the act )as not criminal. It ma& have %een
an error? it ma& have %een )rong and illegal in the sense that it )ould have %een
declared erroneous and set aside on appeal or other proceeding in the superior
court. It ma& )ell %e that his conduct )as ar%itrar& to a high degree, to such a
degree in fact as properl& to su%/ect him to reprimand or even suspension or
removal from oCce. But, from the facts of record, it )as not criminal. As a
necessar& result no presumption of criminal intention arises from the act.
Neither can the presumption of a criminal intention arise from the act complained
of, even though it %e admitted that the crime, if an&, is that of malversation of
pu%lic funds as de*ned and penalized in Act No. !(-'. It is true that that Act
provides that @In all prosecutions for violations of the preceding section, the
a%sence of an& of the pu%lic funds or propert& of )hich an& person descri%ed in said
section has charge, and an& failure or ina%ilit& of such person to produce all the
funds and propert& properl& in his charge on the demand of an& oCcer authorized
to e>amine or inspect such person, oCce, treasur&, or depositar& shall %e deemed
to %e prima facie evidence that such missing funds or propert& have %een put to
personal uses or used for personal ends %& such person )ithin the meaning of the
preceding section.@ Nevertheless, that presumption is a re%utta%le one and
constitutes onl& a prima facie case against the person accused. If he present
evidence sho)ing that, in fact, he has not put said funds or propert& to personal
uses, then that presumption is at an end and the prima facie case destro&ed. In the
case at %ar it )as necessar& for the accused to o4er an& such evidence, for the
reason that the peopleJs o)n pleading alleged, and its o)n proofs presented, along
)ith the criminal charge, facts 1hich sho1ed' of themsel"es' that said money had
not )een p!t to personal !ses or !sed for personal ends. In other )ords, the
prosecution demonstrated, %oth %& the allegations in its information *led against
the accused and %& its proofs on the trial, that the a%sence of the funds in $uestion
1as not d!e to the personal !se thereof )y the acc!sed, thus aCrmativel& and
completel& negativing the presumption )hich, under the act $uoted, arises from the
a%sence of the funds. The presumption )as never %orn. It never e>isted. The facts
)hich )ere presented for the purpose of creating such presumption )ere
accompanied %& other facts )hich a%solutel& prevented its creation.
+n the other hand, if it %e admitted that the crime, if an&, is that of estafa, as
de*ned in paragraph # of article #,# of the .enal Code, then the presumption /ust
referred to does not arise. :ere a%sence of the funds is not suCcient proof of
conversion. Neither is the mere failure of the accused to turn over the funds at an&
given time suCcient to ma;e even a prima facie case. 52. B. "s. :orales, !# .hil.
Aep., 8,7? 2. B. "s. 3ominguez, 8 .hil. Aep., #'.6 Conversion must %e aCrmativel&
proved, either %& direct evidence or %& the production of facts from )hich
conversion necessaril& follo)s. 52. B. "s. :orales, s!pra.6
The /udgment of conviction is reversed and the defendant ordered discharged from
custod& forth)ith.
Arellano' (. J.' #apa and $rent' JJ.' concur.
Se+)r),e O+-.-o./
$ARSON, J., concurring<
I am strongl& inclined to dou%t the %ona *des of the defendant in the transactions
herein set out, %ut in the a%sence of proof %e&ond a reasona%le dou%t upon this
point I concur in the /udgment of ac$uittal of the crime charged in the information.
Aepu%lic of the .hilippines
SPRE#E $ORT
:anila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 17900 #)rc* 20, 1922
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plainti4=appellee,
vs.
ATANASIO NAN1IL, defendant=appellant.
-. #onserrat for appellant
Attorney-General &illa--eal for appellee
RO#ALDE2, J.:
A cart and a cara%ao %elonging to 0uan Aosas had disappeared. To recover
them and *nd the )rongdoer he re$uested the help of the Consta%ular&. A
sergeant and t)o soldiers )ere then commissioned to ma;e investigation.
3uring their investigation these Consta%ular& men called Beverino Aamiscal,
and one of them, surnamed :asiglat, e>amined him, and not having
o%tained from him an& clear information, he turned him over to his
companion, the other soldier, Atanacio Nan$uil, for e>amination %& the latter.
The sergeant )ho commanded that patrol had remained in house in a
neigh%orhood, as he )as feeling ill. The soldier, Atanasio Nan$uil )as
e>amining Beverino Aamiscal on a road, the other soldier, :asiglat, %eing
a%out 8' )razas form them, )hen all of a sudden, :asiglat heard a %lo) and
sa) Beverino Aamiscal fall to the ground L he had %een struc; %& the
soldier, Atanasio Nan$uil )ith his gun, as a conse$uence of )hich, Beverino
Aamiscal died after a fe) moments.
Atansio Nan$uil )as prosecuted for the crime of homicide and sentence %&
the trial court to fourteen &ears, eight months and one da& of recl!sion
temporal, )ith the accessor& penalties, to indemnif& the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of one thousand .!,''' and to pa& the costs.
From the /udgement the defendant, Atanasio Nan$uil, has appealed, his
counsel alleging that the court %elo) erred< 5a6 In giving more credit to the
)itnesses for the prosecution that those for the defense? 5)6 in *nding that
the deceased )as maltreated %& the defendant and his companion, :asiglat,
on the night of the commission of the crime? 5c6 in holding that the crime )as
simple homicide and in imposing the aforesaid penalt&? 5d6 in *nding that the
crime )as attended )ith the aggravating circumstance of nocturnit&? 5e6 in
declaring that it )as onl& at the trial of the case )hen the accused alleged
having acted in self=defense? and 5 f 6 in not *nding the e>empting
circumstance of self=defense to have %een proven.
Anent the *rst error, it should %e noted that the appellant admits %eing the
author of the homicide. It )as, therefore, incum%ent upon him to esta%lish %&
suCcient evidence his allegation of self=defense, )ith all the elements
constituting it. Even supposing that the court %elo) had not attached more
credit to the testimon& of the )itnesses for the prosecution, even if the
evidence %oth for the prosecution and the defense had %een given e$ual
)eight on the controverted point, namel&, that of the self=defense alleged %&
the appellant, such an allegation cannot %e held proven, as it must %e
esta%lished %& positive and suCcient proof. But the fact is that there e>ist
suCcient reasons for giving more credit to the )itnesses for the prosecution
than those of the defense, )ho, %eing mem%ers of the same organization to
)hich the accused %elongs, )ere naturall& interested in his success in the
present case, as most of them have sincerel& admitted it in their testimon&.
And it not having %een proven, that the )itnesses for the prosecution had
an& special interest against the appellant, after )eighing the evidence of
%oth parties, )e *nd no ground for holding that the *rst error assigned %&
the defense )as committed.
As to the second error assigned, it is of no importance to determine in this
case )hether or not the soldier :asiglat, )ho is not accused in these
proceedings, also maltreated the deceased. The fact is that the accuse did,
as is admitted %& him to the e>tent of having caused the death of the
unfortunate Beverino Aamiscal.
2nder the third assignment of error, the defense contends that the most that
can %e said to have %een proven %& the evidence of record is the crime of
homicide through rec;less imprudence. Fe *nd that the accused did not
intend to commit so grave an evil as that )hich resulted, for such an
intention is incompati%le )ith the purpose he had then in vie), )hich )as
that of o%taining a proof against the deceased if his declaration )as a
confession, or of using the deceased as a )itness for the prosecution, if his
testimon& )as a su%stantial revelation. But )hether he had that intention or
not, the fact is that he )illfull& maltreated the deceased, and such an act of
)illfull& causing an evil is, as the Attorne&=1eneral ver& properl& o%serves,
incompati%le )ith rec;less imprudence.
The fourth error is made to consist in the fact of the trial court having ta;en
into account the aggravating circumstance of nocturnit&. Fe hold )ith the
defense and the prosecution that such circumstance cannot %e ta;en into
account in the present case to aggravate the penalt&. To our mind, the event
too; place in the nighttime due to the fact that the sergeant )ho
commanded the patrol of )hich the appellant formed a part fell sic;, and if
nocturnit& )as deli%eratel& sought at all, it )as not in order to maltreat the
deceased 5)hich idea )as not proven to have %een conceived prior to the
deceasedJs refusal to tell an&thing a%out the theft )hich )as under
investigation6, %ut rather to ta;e advantage of the secrec& of the night to
render the investigation more e4ective.
Fith reference to the *fth error assigned, it is true that the )itnesses for the
defense have testi*ed that, shortl& after the event, the accused alleged
having acted in self=defense, %ut a serious dou%t arises from the record as to
the truth of this statement of said )itnesses, )hich dou%t prevents us from
*nding this allegation of the defense to have %een suCcientl& esta%lished.
The last assignment of error contains the )hole theor& of the appellant. From
)hat )e have herein%efore stated, it is seen that the defendantJs allegation
of self=defense cannot %e held proven. It )as not suCcientl& sho)n that the
deceased )as the aggressor, )hich, on the other hand, is highl& impro%a%le
under the circumstances then attending his situation. There not having %een,
as )e *nd that there )as not, an& unla)ful aggression, the accused had
nothing to defend himself against? )herefore )e need not go into the
$uestion )hether or not the means emplo&ed to repel the aggression, )hich
had not %een made, )as reasona%l& necessar&. Neither do )e need
determine )hether or not the accused had suCcientl& provo;ed the
aggression, )hich )as not suCcientl& proven.
Fe *nd no suCcient reason from the record for holding the allegation of self=
defense to have %een esta%lished. Fe do not *nd that an& aggravating
circumstance has concurred in the commission of the crime, %ut )e do *nd
that there )as present the aforesaid mitigating circumstance of the accused
not having had the intention to cause the death of the deceased. For this
reason the penalt& of recl!sion temporal must %e imposed in its minimum
degree.
Fherefore, the /udgment appealed from is modi*ed, and the appellant
sentenced to t)elve &ears and one da& of reclusion temporal, to the
accessor& penalties provided %& article #" of the .enal Code, to indemnif&
the heirs of Beverino Aamiscal in the amount of one thousand pesos
5.!,'''6, and to pa& the costs of %oth instances. Bo ordered.
Ara!llo. (.J.' #alcolm' A"ance2a' &illamor' Ostrand and Johns' JJ.' conc!r.
Aepu%lic of the .hilippines
SPRE#E $ORT
:anila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2'0(' No3ember 0, 1925
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plainti4=appellee,
vs.
PEDRO RA#IRE2, defendant=appellant.
&icente +lanes for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General -eyes for appellee.
BMDDAB2B
!. CAI:INAD. DAF? 9+:ICI3E? 9+:ICI3E T9A+219 AECNDEBB I:.A23ENCE.
L Fhere it appears that the accused ;illed the deceased )hile hunting at
night %& shooting him in the %elief that he )as a deer, after having left the
deceased, )ho )as his companion, at another place, he cannot %e convicted
of the crime of homicide, no proof having %een introduced as to the
e>istence of enmit& %et)een them, %ut of homicide through rec;less
imprudence, since he has not e>ercised due diligence to avoid the accident.
4ILLA#OR, J.:
The appellant )as sentenced %& the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte,
for the crime of homicide, to the penalt& of fourteen &ears, eight months and
one da& of recl!sion temporal, to indemnif& the mother of the deceased in
the sum of .#'' and to pa& the costs.
+n the night of Fe%ruar& !, !"8,, one Bartolome Quiaoit invited .edro
Aamirez, the accused herein, Hictoriano Aanga, the deceased, and Agustin
:enor to hunt in the mount Balito; of the municipalit& of Nueva Era, .rovince
of Ilocos Norte. The three last named proceeded to hunt, leaving Bartolome
Quiaoit in a hut appro>imatel& ! ;ilometer from the place )here the act
complained of too; place. 2pon the hunters having arrived at a place in
mount Balito;, .edro Aamirez, )ho )as carr&ing the shotgun of Bartolome
Quiaoit )ith a lantern, happened to hunt a deer, and then he told his
companions to sta& there and )atch over the pre& )hile he entered the
forest to get it. Thus Hictoriano Aanga and Agusto :enor )ere )aiting )hen
suddenl& the report of the shotgun )as heard hitting Hictoriano Aanga in the
e&e and the right temple, )ho thereafter died on that night as a result of the
)ounds.
It does not appear that the matter )as /udiciall& investigated until the month
of +cto%er, !"8-, )hen the complaint )as *led )hich initiated this
proceedings.
The onl& )itness )ho could testif& upon the act complained of is naturall&
Agustin :enor )ho )as near the deceased )hen the latter )as shot.
According to Agustin :enor, the defendant, after having gotten the *rst pre&,
told his companions to sta& there, )hile he 5.edro Aamirez6 )as leaving
them to go on hunting , and @)hen he )as far a)a&, he *red the shotgun,@
hitting the deceased Hictoriano Aanga. It must %e noted that the )itness
Agustin :enor changed his *rst testimon& that @)hen he )as far a)a&, he
*red the shotgun,@ %& sa&ing after)ards, @Fhen .edro Aamirez )as a little
a)a&, he turned to)ard us and *red.@ And to ma;e it more speci*c, the
defense moved that the translation of the testimon& of the )itness %e
corrected and the interpreter of the court caused it to %e stated in the record
that the true testimon& of the )itness )as as follo)s< @.edro Aamirez caused
me and Hictoriano Aanga to sta& in the mount , telling us< JBrothers, &ou sta&
here and I am going up to hunt )ith the lampJ and then after he has gone
)a&s, he 5.edro Aamirez6 turned to)ard us and *red.@
+n the other hand the defendant, testif&ing as )itness in his %ehalf, admits
%eing the author of the shot )hich caused the death of Hictoriano Aanga?
that on that night after getting the *rst pre&, he told his companions to sta&
there, )atching over the pre&, )hile he )as going a)a& loo;ing for another?
and so he did, %ecause other)ise it )ould have %een hard for them to *nd
the pre&, if no one )ould have %een left there? that %eing far a)a& from his
companions, he seemed to have seen )ith his lantern something li;e the
e&es of a deer a%out *ft& meters from him and then he shot it? %ut much to
his surprise, on approaching )hat he thought )as a deer, it proved to %e his
companion Hictoriano Aanga. The same )itness sa&s that he did not e>pect
to *nd his companions in that spot, for he had )arned them not to leave, %ut
the& left, the place.
The testimon& of the t)o )itnesses as to the distance of the accused from
them )hen he *red the gun for the second time is contradictor&. +n the
other hand, there is not in the record an& circumstances as to )hether or not
the deceased and the )itness Agustin :enor )ere in the same place )here
the& )ere left %& the defendant, )hen the latter *red. The night %eing dar;
li;e that )hen the event too; place, the hunter in the midst of a forest
)ithout paths is li;el& to get confused as to his relative situation? and after
)al;ing around, he ma& thin; having gone ver& far, )hen in fact he has not,
from the point of departure. and so, /udging the case from )hat the t)o
)itnesses Agustin :enor and .edro Aamirez have testi*ed to, and ta;ing into
account that there e>isted no motive )hatever for resentment on the part of
the defendant against the o4ended part&, )e are compelled to conclude that
the act complained of constitutes homicide through rec;less imprudence.
The defendant, )ho )as carr&ing a *rearm to hunt at nighttime )ith the aid
of a lantern, ;no)ing that he had t)o companions, should have e>ercised all
the necessar& diligence to avoid ever& undesira%le accident, such as the one
that unfortunatel& occurred on the person of Hictoriano Aanga.
Fhile the fact that the defendant, a fe) da&s after the event, has o4ered to
the mother of the deceased a cara%ao and a horse %& )a& of indemnit&,
indicates on the one hand that the defendant admitted the commission of
the crime, on the other it sho)s that he performed that act )ithout criminal
intent and onl& through a real imprudence.
The defense alleges that the trial court must have solved the reasona%le
dou%t in favor of the defendant. After considering carefull& the evidence and
all the circumstances of the case, )e are of the opinion and so hold that the
defendant is guilt& of the crime of homicide through rec;less imprudence,
and must %e punished under paragraph ! of article #7 of the .enal Code.
Fherefore the penalt& of one &ear and one da& of prision correccional, )ith
the accessories prescri%ed %& the la), must %e imposed upon him, and )ith
modi*cation, the /udgment appealed from is aCrmed in all other respects,
)ith the costs against the appellant. Bo ordered.
A"ance2a' (. J.' Street' #alcolm' Ostrand' Johns' and &illa--eal' JJ.' conc!r.

Se+)r),e O+-.-o./
RO#ALDE2, J., dissenting in part<
I %elieve that the guilt of the defendant is onl& under paragraph 8 of article
#7 of the .enal Code.