Anda di halaman 1dari 2

50. URBANO V.

IAC
GR No. 72964 / 7 January 1988 / 3rd Division / Petition for Review, Rule 45
Petitioner Filomeno Urbano
Respondents IAC, People of the Phils
Gutierrez, Jr., J.
(Digest by Kei Garcia)

SHORT VERSION:
Court reiterates that the rule to hold criminal liability, as in this case a homicide, is that the
death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. In this case, the victim died of tetanus only
22 days after he was wounded on his palm when petitioner Urbano hacked him with a bolo.
The infection was distinct and foreign to the crime, and the infection was an efficient
intervening cause between the time of the infliction of wound to the time of Javiers death.
Urbano is acquitted from homicide.

FACTS:
At 8am of October 23, 1980 in San Fabian, Pangasinan, Filomeno Urbano went to his
ricefields and saw that the place where he stored his palay was flooded with water coming
from the irrigation canal nearby. At the same time, 100 meters away, Urbano saw the victim
Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He went over to them and asked them who was
responsible for opening the irrigation canal which caused the flooding. Javier admitted he
was responsible. Urbano got angry and unsheated his bolo, then he hacked his bolo at Javier,
hitting him on the right palm of his hand, and then again on the left leg with the back
portion of the bolo, which resulted in swelling. Before causing more harm, Urbanos daughter
embraced his and prevented him from hacking Javier again.

Javier was brought to his house by Emilio, Antonio, and Felipe Erfe. Emilio went to the house
of the Barangay Captain, but unable to find him, sought the help of Barrio Councilman Solis
instead. Upon Soliss advice, Javier was brought to the police station, and then later on was
treated by a physician, Dr. Meneses.

Urbano and Javier agreed to settle their differences, and Urbano paid P700 for Javiers
medical expenses. But on November 14 (or 22 days after the incident), Javier was brought to
Nazareth General Hospital when he suddenly had convulsions and lockjaw. The physician
who attended to him found that Javiers condition was caused by a tetanus toxin, and he
noticed that the healing wound on Javiers palm could have been infected by tetanus. The
next day, Javier died.

Urbano was charged with homicide. Both the trial court and the IAC found him guilty.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from the time
Javier was wounded until his death which would exculpate Urbano from liability.
(COURT SAYS: YES.)

Ruling: Petition granted. Urbano is acquitted.

RATIO: The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and
logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused . (Court cites
People v. Cardenas) And since the Court is dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that
the accused caused the victim's death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable
doubt. The medical findings, however, leads to a distinct possibility that the
infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or
between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was,
therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
The Court reiterates the following as explanation:
In the case at bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm when he parried
the bolo which Urbano used in hacking him. This incident took place on October 23, 1980.
After 22 days, or on November 14, 1980, he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw
and muscle spasms. The following day, November 15, 1980, he died.

If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by tetanus
germs at the time, it is more medically probable that Javier should have been infected with
only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared on the 22nd day
after the hacking incident or more than 14 days after the infliction of the wound. Therefore,
the onset time should have been more than six days. Javier, however, died on the second
day from the onset time. The more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was
inflicted by the appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present.
Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking
incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have
been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he died.

OBITER: Court stresses that the discussion on proximate and remote cause is only limited to
criminal aspects of the case. It does not necessarily follow that Urbano is also free from civil
liability.

VOTING: Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and,Cortes, JJ., concur.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai