Anda di halaman 1dari 1

G.R. No.


December 16, 1955

VIRGINIA CALANOC, COURT OF APPEALS !" T#E P#ILIPPINE A$ERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., FACTS: Melencio Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply located at the corner of Avenida Rizal and Zur aran! "e secured a life insurance policy from the #hilippine American $ife %nsurance Company in the amount of #&'((( to which was attached a supplementary contract coverin) death y accident! *n +anuary &,' -.,-' he died of a )unshot wound on the occasion of a ro ery committed in the house of Atty! */eda at the corner of *ro0uieta and Zur aan streets! 1ir)inia Calanoc' the widow' was paid the sum of #&'(((' face value of the policy' ut when she demanded the payment of the additional sum of #&'((( representin) the value of the supplemental policy' the company refused alle)in)' that the deceased died ecause he was murdered y a person who too2 part in the commission of the ro ery and while ma2in) an arrest as an officer of the law which contin)encies were e3pressly e3cluded in the contract and have the effect of e3emptin) the company from lia ility! %t is contended in ehalf of the company that Basilio was 2illed which 4ma2in) an arrest as an officer of the law4 or as a result of an 4assault or murder4 committed in the place and therefore his death was caused y one of the ris2s e3cluded y the supplementary contract which e3empts the company from lia ility! %SS56: 7hether or not the death of Basilio is one of the e3cepted ris2s which e3empts the insurer from lia ility R5$%89: 8o! The circumstance that he was a mere watchman and had no duty to heed the call of Atty! */eda should not e ta2en as a capricious desire on his part to e3pose his life to dan)er considerin) the fact that the place he was in duty: ound to )uard was only a loc2 away! "e cannot therefore e lamed solely for doin) what he elieved was in 2eepin) with his duty as a watchman and as a citizen! And he cannot e considered as ma2in) an arrest as an officer of the law' as contended' simply ecause he went with the traffic policeman' for certainly he did not )o there for that purpose nor was he as2ed to do so y the policeman! %n the first place' there is no proof that the death of Basilio is the result of either crime for the record is arren of any circumstance showin) how the fatal shot was fired! 8or can it e said that the 2illin) was intentional for there is the possi ility that the malefactor had fired the shot merely to scare away the people around for his own protection and not necessarily to 2ill or hit the victim! The fact remains that the happenin) was a pure accident on the part of the victim! 7e are therefore persuaded to conclude that the circumstances unfolded in the present case do not warrant the findin) that the death of the unfortunate victim comes within the purview of the e3ception clause of the supplementary policy and' hence' do not e3empt the company from lia ility!