FIRST
DIVISION
|
ROLLIE
CALIMUTAN,
Petitioner, - versus- PEOPLE OF
THE
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 152133 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J. Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ. Promulgated: February 9, 2006 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
In this
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner Rollie
Calimutan prays for the reversal of the Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23306, dated 29 August 2001,[1]
affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, of Masbate, Masbate, in Criminal
Case No. 8184, dated 19 November 1998,[2]
finding petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
The
Information[3]
filed with the RTC charged petitioner Calimutan with
the crime of homicide, allegedly committed as follows –
That on or about February 4, 1996, in the morning thereof, at sitio Capsay, Barangay Panique, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and throw a stone at PHILIP CANTRE, hitting him at the back left portion of his body, resulting in laceration of spleen due to impact which caused his death a day after.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Accordingly,
the RTC issued, on
In the course of the trial, the
prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: (1) Dr. Ronaldo
B. Mendez, a Senior Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI); (2) Belen B. Cantre, mother of
the victim, Philip Cantre; and (3) Rene L. Sañano, companion of the victim Cantre
when the alleged crime took place. Their
testimonies are collectively summarized below.
On
Victim Cantre
immediately told his mother, Belen, of the stoning incident involving
petitioner Calimutan.
He again complained of backache and also of stomachache, and was unable
to eat. By nighttime, victim Cantre was alternately feeling cold and then warm. He was sweating profusely and his entire body
felt numb. His family would have wanted
to bring him to a doctor but they had no vehicle. At around
Right after his death, victim Cantre was examined by Dr. Conchita
S. Ulanday, the Municipal Health Officer of Aroroy,
Unsatisfied with the findings of Dr. Ulanday, the Cantre family, with
the help of the Lingkod Bayan-Circulo
de Abogadas of the ABS-CBN Foundation, requested for
an exhumation and autopsy of the body of the victim Cantre
by the NBI. The exhumation and autopsy
of the body of the victim Cantre was conducted by Dr.
Ronaldo B. Mendez on
Body; fairly well-preserved with sign of partial
autopsy; clad in white Barong Tagalog and blue pants
placed inside a wooden golden-brown coffin and buried in a concrete niche.
Contused-abrasion, 2.3 x 1.0 cms.,
posterior chest wall, left side.
Hematoma, 16.0 x 8.0 cms., abdomen,
along mid-line.
Hemoperitoneum, massive, clotte [sic].
Laceration, spleen.
Other visceral organ, pale and embalmed.
Stomach contains small amount of whitish fluid and
other partially digested food particles.
x x x x
CAUSE OF DEATH: TRAUMATIC INJURY OF THE ABDOMEN.
In his testimony before the RTC, Dr. Mendez affirmed the contents of his
exhumation and autopsy report. He
explained that the victim Cantre suffered from an
internal hemorrhage and there was massive accumulation of blood in his
abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen.
The laceration of the spleen can be caused by any blunt instrument, such
as a stone. Hence, Dr. Mendez confirmed
the possibility that the victim Cantre was stoned to
death by petitioner Calimutan.[13]
To counter
the evidence of the prosecution, the defense presented the sole testimony of
the accused, herein petitioner, Calimutan.
According
to petitioner Calimutan, at about
Petitioner Calimutan was totally unaware of what had happened to the
victim Cantre after the stoning incident on
On
It cannot be legally contended that the throwing of the stone by the accused was in defense of his companion, a stranger, because after the boxing Michael was able to run. While it appears that the victim was the unlawful aggressor at the beginning, but the aggression already ceased after Michael was able to run and there was no more need for throwing a stone. The throwing of the stone to the victim which was a retaliatory act can be considered unlawful, hence the accused can be held criminally liable under paragraph 1 of Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
The act of throwing a stone from behind which hit the victim at his back on the left side was a treacherous one and the accused committed a felony causing physical injuries to the victim. The physical injury of hematoma as a result of the impact of the stone resulted in the laceration of the spleen causing the death of the victim. The accused is criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of this unlawful act even if the ultimate result had not been intended. (Art. 4, Par. 1, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Narciso, CA-G.R. No. 03532-CR, Jan. 13, 1964)
One
is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s
illegal acts merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences (
The crime committed is Homicide as defined and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds and so holds that accused ROLLIE CALIMUTAN is GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide defined and penalized under Art. 249
of the Revised Penal Code with no mitigating or aggravating circumstance and
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby imposes the penalty of
imprisonment from EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor as
minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal as maximum,
and to indemnify the heirs of Philip Cantre the sum
of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as compensatory damages and the sum
of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Petitioner Calimutan
appealed the Decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision, dated
The prosecution has sufficiently
established that the serious internal injury sustained by the victim was caused
by the stone thrown at the victim by the accused which, the accused-appellant
does not deny. It was likewise shown
that the internal injury sustained by the victim was the result of the impact
of the stone that hit the victim. It
resulted to a traumatic injury of the abdomen causing the laceration of the
victim’s spleen.
This is clearly shown by the
autopsy report prepared by Dr. Ronaldo Mendez, a
Senior Medico Legal Officer of the NBI after the exhumation of the victim’s
cadaver…
The Court cannot give credence to
the post mortem report prepared by Municipal Health Officer Dr. Conchita Ulanday stating that the
cause of the victim’s death was food poisoning.
Dr. Ulanday was not even presented to testify
in court hence she was not even able to identify and/or affirm the contents of
her report. She was not made available
for cross-examination on the accuracy and correctness of her findings.
Dr. Conchita
Ulanday’s post mortem report cannot prevail over the
autopsy report (Exh. “C”) of the Medico-Legal Officer
of the NBI who testified and was cross-examined by the defense.
Besides, if accused-appellant was
convinced that the victim indeed died of food poisoning, as reported by Dr. Conchita Ulanday, why did they
not present her as their witness to belie the report of the Medico-Legal
Officer of the NBI.
The trial court’s evaluation of the
testimony of Dr. Mendez is accorded the highest respect because it had the
opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of said witness.
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate,
Branch 46, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide is hereby AFFIRMED.
The Court
of Appeals, in its Resolution, dated
Comes now petitioner Calimutan, by way of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, seeking (1) the reversal of
the Decisions of the RTC, dated 19 November 1998, and of the Court of Appeals,
dated 29 August 2001, convicting him of the crime of homicide; and, (2) consequently,
his acquittal of the said crime based on reasonable doubt.
Petitioner Calimutan
contended that the existence of the two autopsy reports, with dissimilar
findings on the cause of death of the victim Cantre,
constituted reasonable doubt as to the liability of petitioner Calimutan for the said death, arguing that –
x x x [I]t was Dra. Conchita Ulanday, Municipal Health Officer of Aroroy, Masbate was the first physician of the government who conducted an examination on the cadaver of the victim Philip Cantre whose findings was that the cause of his death was due to food poisoning while the second government physician NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ronaldo Mendez whose findings was that the cause of the death was due to a traumatic injury of the abdomen caused by a lacerated spleen and with these findings of two (2) government physicians whose findings are at variance with each other materially, it is humbly contended that the same issue raised a reasonable doubt on the culpability of the petitioner.
As there are improbabilities and uncertainties of the evidence for the prosecution in the case at bar, it suffices to reaise [sic] reasonable doubt as to the petitioner’s guilt and therefore, he is entitled to acquittal (People vs. Delmendo, G.R. No. 32146, November 23, 1981).[19]
In this jurisdiction, an accused in a
criminal case may only be convicted if his or her guilt is established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute
certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error.[20]
In the
Petition at bar, this Court finds that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt
to hold petitioner Calimutan liable for the death of
the victim Cantre.
Undoubtedly,
the exhumation and autopsy report and the personal testimony before the RTC of
prosecution witness, NBI Senior Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Mendez, are vital
pieces of evidence against petitioner Calimutan. Dr. Mendez determined that the victim Cantre died of internal hemorrhage or bleeding due to the
laceration of his spleen. In his
testimony, Dr. Mendez clearly and consistently explained that the spleen could
be lacerated or ruptured when the abdominal area was hit with a blunt object,
such as the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at
the victim Cantre.
It bears to
emphasize that Dr. Mendez was presented by the prosecution as an expert
witness, whose “competency and academic qualification and background” was
admitted by the defense itself.[21]
As a Senior Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, Dr. Mendez is presumed to
possess sufficient knowledge of pathology, surgery, gynecology, toxicology, and
such other branches of medicine germane to the issues involved in a case.[22]
Dr.
Mendez’s testimony as an expert witness is evidence,[23]
and although it does not necessarily bind the courts, both the RTC and the
Court of Appeals had properly accorded it great weight and probative
value. Having testified as to matters
undeniably within his area of expertise, and having performed a thorough
autopsy on the body of the victim Cantre, his
findings as to the cause of death of the victim Cantre
are more than just the mere speculations of an ordinary person. They may sufficiently establish the causal
relationship between the stone thrown by the petitioner Calimutan
and the lacerated spleen of the victim Cantre which,
subsequently, resulted in the latter’s death.
With no apparent mistake or irregularity, whether in the manner by which
Dr. Mendez performed the autopsy on the body of the victim Cantre
or in his findings, then his report and testimony must be seriously considered
by this Court.
Moreover, reference to other resource
materials on abdominal injuries would also support the conclusion of Dr. Mendez
that the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan caused
the death of the victim Cantre.
One source explains the nature of
abdominal injuries[24]
in the following manner –
The skin may remain unmarked inspite of extensive internal injuries with bleeding and disruption of the internal organs. The areas most vulnerable are the point of attachment of internal organs, especially at the source of its blood supply and at the point where blood vessels change direction.
The area in the middle superior half of the abdomen, forming a triangle bounded by the ribs on the two sides and a line drawn horizontally through the umbilicus forming its base is vulnerable to trauma applied from any direction. In this triangle are found several blood vessels changing direction, particularly the celiac trunk, its branches (the hepatic, splenic and gastric arteries) as well as the accompanying veins. The loop of the duodenum, the ligament of Treitz and the pancreas are in the retroperitoneal space, and the stomach and transverse colon are in the triangle, located in the peritoneal cavity. Compression or blow on the area may cause detachment, laceration, stretch-stress, contusion of the organs (Legal Medicine 1980, Cyril H. Wecht et., p. 41).
As to injuries
to the spleen, in particular,[25]
the same source expounds that –
The spleen usually suffers traumatic rupture resulting from the impact of a fall or blow from the crushing and grinding effects of wheels of motor vehicles. Although the organ is protected at its upper portion by the ribs and also by the air-containing visceral organs, yet on account of its superficiality and fragility, it is usually affected by trauma. x x x.
Certainly,
there are some terms in the above-quoted paragraphs difficult to comprehend for
people without medical backgrounds.
Nevertheless, there are some points that can be plainly derived therefrom: (1)
Contrary to common perception, the abdominal area is more than just the waist
area. The entire abdominal area is
divided into different triangles, and the spleen is located in the upper
triangle, bounded by the rib cage; (2) The spleen and all internal organs in
the same triangle are vulnerable to trauma from all directions. Therefore, the stone need not hit the victim Cantre from the front.
Even impact from a stone hitting the back of the victim Cantre, in the area of the afore-mentioned triangle, could
rupture the spleen; and (3) Although the spleen had already been ruptured or
lacerated, there may not always be a perceptible external injury to the
victim. Injury to the spleen cannot, at
all times, be attributed to an obvious, external injury such as a cut or
bruise. The laceration of the victim Cantre’s spleen can be caused by a stone thrown hard
enough, which qualifies as a nonpenetrating trauma[26]
–
Nonpenetrating Trauma. The spleen, alone or in combination with other viscera, is the most frequently injured organ following blunt trauma to the abdomen or the lower thoracic cage. Automobile accidents provide the predominating cause, while falls, sledding and bicycle injuries, and blows incurred during contact sports are frequently implicated in children. x x x
The sheer
impact of the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at
the back of the victim Cantre could rupture or lacerate
the spleen – an organ described as vulnerable, superficial, and fragile – even
without causing any other external physical injury. Accordingly, the findings of Dr. Mendez that
the victim Cantre died of internal hemorrhage from
his lacerated spleen, and the cause of the laceration of the spleen was the
stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at the back of
the victim Cantre, does not necessarily contradict
his testimony before the RTC that none of the external injuries of the victim Cantre were fatal.
Based on
the foregoing discussion, the prosecution was able to establish that the
proximate cause of the death of the victim Cantre was
the stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan. 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.”[27]
The two
other witnesses presented by the prosecution, namely Sañano
and Belen Cantre, had adequately recounted the events
that transpired on
Hence, this Court is morally persuaded
that the victim Cantre died from a lacerated spleen,
an injury sustained after being hit by a stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan. Not even
the post-mortem report of Dr. Ulanday, the Municipal
Health Officer who first examined the body of the victim Cantre,
can raise reasonable doubt as to the cause of death of the victim Cantre. Invoking Dr.
Ulanday’s post-mortem report, the defense insisted on
the possibility that the victim Cantre died of food
poisoning. The post-mortem report,
though, cannot be given much weight and probative value for the following
reasons –
First, a closer scrutiny of the words used by
Dr. Ulanday in her post-mortem report, as well as in
the death certificate of the victim Cantre, reveals
that although she suspected food poisoning as the cause of death, she held back
from making a categorical statement that it was so. In the post-mortem report, [28]
she found that “x x x the
provable (sic) cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory arrest. Food poisoning must be confirm (sic)
by laboratory e(x)am.” In the death
certificate of the victim Cantre, [29]
she wrote that the immediate cause of death was “Cardio-Respiratory Arrest” and
the antecedent cause was “Food Poisoning Suspect.” There was no showing that further laboratory
tests were indeed conducted to confirm Dr. Ulanday’s
suspicion that the victim Cantre suffered from food
poisoning, and without such confirmation, her suspicion as to the cause of
death remains just that – a suspicion.
Second, Dr. Ulanday
executed before the NBI a sworn statement[30]
in which she had explained her findings in the post-mortem report, to wit –
05. Q: Did you conduct an autopsy on his cadaver?
A: I did sir, but not as exhaustive as that done by the NBI Medico-legal.
06. Q: Now, what do you want to state regarding your certification on the death of PHILIP B. CANTRE?
A: I stated in the certification and even in the Death Certificate about “Food Poisoning”. What I stated in the Death Certificate was that CANTRE was a SUSPECTED victim of food poisoning. I didn’t state that he was a case of food poisoning. And in the Certification, I even recommended that an examination be done to confirm that suspicion.
07. Q: What gave you that suspicion of poisoning?
A: As there were no external signs of fatal injuries except that of the contusion or abrasion, measuring as that size of a 25 centavo coin, I based my suspicion from the history of the victim and from the police investigation.
08. Q: You also mentioned in your Certification that there was no internal hemorrhage in the cadaver. Did you open the body of the cadaver?
A: As I have already stated sir, I did not conduct an exhaustive autopsy. I made an incision on the abdomen and I explored the internal organs of the cadaver with my hand in search for any clotting inside. But I found none. I did not open the body of the cadaver.
09. Q: You mentioned about a contusion you have observed on the cadaver. Where was it located?
A: On the left portion of his back, sir.
10. Q: Now, is it possible that if somebody be hit by a hard object on that part of his body, his SPLEEN could be injured?
A: Yes, sir. But that would depend on how strong or forceful the impact was.
In
contrast, Dr. Mendez described in his testimony before the RTC[31]
how he conducted the autopsy of the body of the victim Cantre,
as follows –
Q What specific procedure did you do in connection with the exhumation of the body of the victim in this case?
A We opened the head, chest and the abdomen.
Q That was part of the autopsy you have conducted?
A Yes, sir.
Q Aside from opening the head as well as the body of the victim Philip Cantre, what other matters did you do in connection therewith?
A We examined the internal organs.
Q What in particular internal organs you have examined?
A The brain, the heart, the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the pancreas plus the intestines.
x x x x
Q The cause of death as you have listed here in your findings is listed as traumatic injury of the abdomen, will you kindly tell us Doctor what is the significance of this medical term traumatic injury of the abdomen?
A We, medico-legal officers of the NBI don’t do what other doctors do as they make causes of death as internal hemorrhage we particularly point to the injury of the body like this particular case the injury was at the abdomen of the victim.
Q Will you tell as Doctor what particular portion of the abdomen of the victim this traumatic injury is located?
A Along the midline but the damaged organ was at the left.
Q What particular organ are you referring to?
A The spleen, sir.
The
difference in the extent of the examinations conducted by the two doctors of
the body of the victim Cantre provides an adequate
explanation for their apparent inconsistent findings as to the cause of
death. Comparing the limited autopsy
conducted by Dr. Ulanday and her unconfirmed
suspicion of food poisoning of the victim Cantre, as
opposed to the exhaustive autopsy performed by Dr. Mendez and his definitive
finding of a ruptured spleen as the cause of death of the victim Cantre, then the latter, without doubt, deserves to be
given credence by the courts.
Third, that the prosecution no longer
presented Dr. Ulanday before the RTC despite being
included in its list of witnesses did not amount to a willful suppression of
evidence that would give rise to the presumption that her testimony would be
adverse to the prosecution if produced.[32] As this Court already expounded in the case
of People v. Jumamoy[33] –
The prosecution's failure to present the other witnesses listed in the information did not constitute, contrary to the contention of the accused, suppression of evidence. The prosecutor has the exclusive prerogative to determine the witnesses to be presented for the prosecution. If the prosecution has several eyewitnesses, as in the instant case, the prosecutor need not present all of them but only as many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with for being merely corroborative in nature. This Court has ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses would not constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the prosecution's case. Besides, there is no showing that the eyewitnesses who were not presented in court as witnesses were not available to the accused. We reiterate the rule that the adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence is not applicable when (1) the suppression is not willful; (2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; and (4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Moreover, if the accused believed that the failure to present the other witnesses was because their testimonies would be unfavorable to the prosecution, he should have compelled their appearance, by compulsory process, to testify as his own witnesses or even as hostile witnesses.
It was a
judgment call for the prosecution to no longer present Dr. Ulanday
before the RTC, perhaps believing that it had already presented sufficient
evidence to merit the conviction of petitioner Calimutan
even without her testimony. There was nothing,
however, preventing the defense from calling on, or even compelling, with the
appropriate court processes, Dr. Ulanday to testify
in court as its witness if it truly believed that her testimony would be
adverse to the case presented by the prosecution.
While this Court is in accord with the
factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals and affirms that there is
ample evidence proving that the death of the victim Cantre
was caused by his lacerated spleen, an injury which resulted from being hit by
the stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan, this
Court, nonetheless, is at variance with the RTC and the Court of Appeals as to
the determination of the appropriate crime or offense for which the petitioner
should have been convicted for.
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code
classifies felonies according to the means by which they are committed, in
particular: (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. These two types of felonies are distinguished
from each other by the existence or absence of malicious intent of the offender
–
In intentional felonies, the
act or omission of the offender is malicious. In the language of Art. 3, the act is
performed with deliberate intent (with malice).
The offender, in performing the act or in incurring the omission, has
the intention to cause an injury to another. In culpable felonies, the act or omission of
the offender is not malicious.
The injury caused by the offender to another person is “unintentional,
it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.”
(People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939). As
stated in Art. 3, the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.[34]
In the Petition at bar, this Court
cannot, in good conscience, attribute to petitioner Calimutan
any malicious intent to injure, much less to kill, the victim Cantre; and in the absence of such intent, this Court
cannot sustain the conviction of petitioner Calimutan
for the intentional crime of homicide, as rendered by the RTC and affirmed by
the Court of Appeals. Instead, this
Court finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
expressly provides for the definition of reckless imprudence –
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
There are
several circumstances, discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, that demonstrate
petitioner Calimutan’s lack of intent to kill the
victim Cantre, and conversely, that substantiate the
view of this Court that the death of victim Cantre
was a result of petitioner Calimutan’s reckless
imprudence. The RTC and the Court of
Appeals may have failed to appreciate, or had completely overlooked, the
significance of such circumstances.
It should
be remembered that the meeting of the victim Cantre
and witness Sañano, on the one hand, and petitioner Calimutan and his helper Bulalacao,
on the other, was a chance encounter as the two parties were on their way to
different destinations. The victim Cantre and witness Sañano were on
their way home from a drinking spree in Crossing Capsay,
while petitioner Calimutan and his helper Bulalacao were walking from the market to Crossing Capsay. While the
evidence on record suggests that a running grudge existed between the victim Cantre and Bulalacao, it did not
establish that there was likewise an existing animosity between the victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan.
In both
versions of the events of
The
above-described incident could not have taken more than just a few
minutes. It was a very brief scuffle, in
which the parties involved would hardly have the time to ponder upon the most
appropriate course of action to take.
With this in mind, this Court cannot concur in the declaration made by
the Court of Appeals that petitioner Calimutan threw
the stone at the victim Cantre as a retaliatory
act. It was evidently a swift and
spontaneous reaction to an unexpected and unprovoked attack by the victim Cantre on Bulalacao. That Bulalacao was
already able to run away from the victim Cantre may
have escaped the notice of the petitioner Calimutan
who, under the pressure of the circumstances, was forced to act as quickly as
possible.
The
prosecution did not establish that petitioner Calimutan
threw the stone at the victim Cantre with the
specific intent of killing, or at the very least, of harming the victim Cantre. What is
obvious to this Court was petitioner Calimutan’s
intention to drive away the attacker who was, at that point, the victim Cantre, and to protect his helper Bulalacao
who was, as earlier described, much younger and smaller in built than the
victim Cantre.[35]
Granting
that petitioner Calimutan was impelled by a lawful
objective when he threw the stone at the victim Cantre,
his act was committed with inexcusable lack of precaution. He failed to consider that a stone the size
of a man’s fist could inflict substantial injury on someone. He also miscalculated his own strength,
perhaps unaware, or even completely disbelieving, that he could throw a stone
with such force as to seriously injure, or worse, kill someone, at a quite
lengthy distance of ten meters.
Since it is irrefragable that the
stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at the victim Cantre was the proximate cause of the latter’s death,
despite being done with reckless imprudence rather than with malicious intent,
petitioner Calimutan remains civilly liable for such
death. This Court, therefore, retains
the reward made by the RTC and the Court of Appeals to the heirs of the victim Cantre of the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for his death and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.
WHEREFORE,
the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23306, dated 29
August 2001, affirming the Decision of the RTC in Criminal Case No. 8184, dated
19 November 1998, is hereby MODIFIED.
Petitioner Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, under Article
365 of the Revised Penal Code, and is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for
a minimum period of 4 months of arresto
mayor to a maximum period of two years and one day of prision
correccional.
Petitioner Calimutan is further ORDERED to pay
the heirs of the victim Cantre the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity for the latter’s death and P50,000.00 as moral
damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona with Associate Justices Eugenio
S. Labitoria and Eloy R.
[2] Penned by Judge Narciso G. Bravo,
[3] RTC Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5] Order of Release, penned by Judge
Designate Silvestre L. Aguirre,
[6]
[7] Certificate of Arraignment,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] RTC records, p. 12.
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15]
[16] Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Revised Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 2.
[21] TSN,
[22] Pedro P. Solis, LEGAL MEDICINE, p. 2 (1987).
[23] REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Section 49.
[24] Supra note 22, p. 317.
[25]
[27] Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186 (1957).
[28] RTC records, p. 12.
[29]
[30]
[31] TSN,
[32] Revised Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(e).
[33] G.R. No. 101584,
[34] I Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, pp. 33-34 (13th Ed., 1993).
[35] In the following cases, the accused were convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, rather than murder or homicide, for they were found to have acted without criminal intent: (1) The accused, a faith healer, who caused the death of a boy after she immersed the boy in a drum of water, banged the boy’s head against a wooden bench, pounded the boy’s chest with clenched fists, and stabbed the boy to collect his blood. The boy was allegedly possessed by an evil spirit which the accused was merely attempting to drive out (People v. Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 267); (2) The accused shot his gun at the ground to stop a fist fight, and when the bullet ricocheted, it hit and killed a bystander (People v. Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018 [1947]); (3) The accused carried a gun to shoot birds, when the victim attempted to wrest possession thereof. The gun went off, hitting and killing the victim (People v. Sara, 55 Phil 939 [1931]); and (4) While hunting, the accused shot at and killed what he thought was a prey, but who turned out to be one of his companions (People v. Ramirez, 48 Phil 204 [1926]).