Batacalan v Medina 102 Phil 181

Torts and Damages Proximate Cause

After one midnight in September 1952, Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned by Medina from Cavite to Pasay. While on its way, the driver of the bus was speeding through and when he applied the brakes it cause the bus to be overturned. The driver, the conductor, and some passengers were able to free themselves from the bus except Bataclan and 3 others. The passengers called the help of the villagers and as it was dark, the villagers brought torch with them. The driver and the conductor failed to warn the would-be helpers of the fact that gasoline has spilled from the overturned bus so a huge fire ensued which engulfed the bus thereby killing the 4 passengers trapped inside. It was also found later in trial that the tires of the bus were old. ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan et al was their burning by reason of the torches which ignited the gasoline. HELD: No. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was caused by the negligence of the driver because he was speeding and also he was already advised by Medina to change the tires yet he did not. Such negligence resulted to the overturning of the bus. The torches carried by the would-be helpers are not to be blamed. It is just but natural for the villagers to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a rural area which did not have flashlights, torches are the natural source of lighting. Further, the smell of gas could have been all over the place yet the driver and the conductor failed to provide warning about said fact to the villagers. WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE? Proximate cause is 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. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.

U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488)

27JUL
FACTS: The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at Officers quarters. On the night, the defendant, who had received for the night, was suddenly awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, Who is there? He heard no answer and was convinced by

the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. The defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out: If yo u enter the room, I will kill you. He was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair and he thought that the blow had been inflicted by the person who had forced the door open, whom he supposed to be a burglar. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate. The roommate eventually died. ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong is liable for the death of his roommate. HELD: NO. Ah Chong was acquitted. RATIO: The decision of the lower court was reversed. The case was a mistake of fact resulting to self -defense justified under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code where there is (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Had the deceased be a robber as he thought, his actions would not be criminally liable. Some maxims cited: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, the act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so; Actus me incito factus non est meus actus, an act done by me against my will is not my act;

People v Oanis

Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get hi dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back toward the door, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted criminal.. Held: Both accused are guilty of murder Ratio: Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping. In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of law who are trying to capture him that killing him would be justified.

Facts:

Chief of Police Antonio Oanis and Corporal Alberto Galanta were instructed by the Constabulary Provincial Inspector to arrest the escaped convict, Anselmo Balagtas, with bailarina named Irene, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Upon arrival at the place where Irene could be found, Oanis approached and asked Brigada Mallare where Irene's room was. Brigada indicated the room and said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour. Oanis and Galanta then went to the room and upon seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, they simultaneously fired at him. Shocked by the entire scene, Irene fainted. It turned out later that the man shot and killed was not Balagtas but an innocent man named Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour. Issue: Whether or not Oanis and Galanta can be held responsible for Tecson's death. Held: Yes Ratio: No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. A peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary or unreasonable force in making an arrest. Through impatience of desire to take chances, Oanis and Galanta have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty by killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any resistance from him and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity.

CASE DIGEST ON INTOD V. CA [215 SCRA 52 (1992)] Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at her room. However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one. Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder? Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible crimean act which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1) legal responsibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where: (1) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) There is no intention to perform the physical act; (3) There is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummation of intended crime.

Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

People v. Kalalo GR Nos. L-39303-39305 March 17, 2009 FACTS: On November 10, 1932, the appellants, namely, Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos, were tried in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, together with Alejandro Garcia, Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica in criminal cases Nos. 6858, 6859 and 6860, the first two for murder, and the last for frustrated murder. Upon agreement of the parties said three cases were tried together and after the presentation of their respective evidence, the said court acquitted Alejandro Garcia, Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica, and sentenced the other appellants. Prior to the commission of the three crimes, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo and Isabel Holgado, the latter being the sister of one of the deceased, had a litigation over a parcel of land situated in the barrio of Calumpang in the municipality of San Luis, Batangas. Kalalo filed two complaints against the said woman in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, alleging that he, Kalalo cultivated the land in question during 1931 and 1932 but that, when harvest time came Isabela Holgado reaped all that had been planted thereon. Both complaints were dismissed. On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother Arcadio Holgado, one of the deceased, ordered the plowing of the disputed land and employed several laborers for that purpose. Marcelo Kalalo, upon learning about it, went to the place accompanied by his brothers and Felipa and Juan, his brotherin-law Gregorio Ramos and by Alejandro Garcia. They were all armed with bolos and upon arriving at the place, they ordered the workers to stop. Having been informed of the cause of the suspension of the work, Marcelino Panaligan, one of the deceased, ordered the laborers to continue the work. At this point, Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio and the other appellants approached Marcelino Panaligan and they all simultaneously struck with their bolos. Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan died instantly from the wounds received. After the two had fallen, Marcelo Kalalo took the revolver that Marcelino Panaligan carried, and fired four shots at Hilario Holgado who was then fleeing from the scene in order to save his own life. ISSUE: WON the appellants are guilty of murder or of simple homicide in each of the cases. HELD: It is true that under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines murder, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength, if proven to have been presented, raises homicide to the category of murder;but it is also to be borne in mind that the deceased were also armed, one of them with a bolo, and the other with a revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their strength was almost balanced because there is no doubt but that, under circumstances similar to those of the present case, a revolver is as effective as, if not more than three bolos. For this reason, this court is of the opinion that the acts established in cases Nos. 6858 and 6859 (G.R. Nos. L-39303 and 39304, respectively), merely constitute two homicides.

As to the third case, the evidence shows that Marcelo Kalalo fired four successive shots at Hilarion Holgado while the latter was fleeing from the scene of the crime in order to be out of reach of the appellants and their companions and save his own life. The fact that the said appellant, not having contended himself with firing only once, fired said successive shots at Hilarion Holgado, added to the circumstance that immediately before doing so he and his co-appellants had already killed Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan, cousin and brother-in-law, respectively, of the former, shows that he was then bent on killing said Hilarion Holgado. He performed everything necessary on his pat to commit the crime that he determined to commit but he failed by reason of causes independent of his will, either because of his poor aim or because his intended victim succeeded in dodging the shots, none of which found its mark. The acts thus committed by the said appellant Marcelo Kalalo constitute attempted homicide. Valenzuela vs. People G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007 Petitioner: Aristotel Valenzuela Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Court of Appeals Ponente: J. Tinga

Image courtesy of Google Images

FACTS: While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the cartons inside. As the taxi was about to leave, the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage. HELD: No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to

freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.