G.R. No.

72964 January 7, 1988

FILOMENO URBANO, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:

 October 23, 1980 in a ricefield in San Fabian, Pangasinan, Filomeno Urbano hacked Marcelo
Javier in his right palm, with his two feet long and two inches wide bolo due to the opening of
the irrigation canal that flooded the palay of Urbano, that caused the quarrel. Urbano only
stopped when his daughter intervened and hugged him to stop.
 Antonio Erfe, Emilio Erfe, and Felipe Erfe brought Javier to his house, which was 50 meters away
from the place of the incident. Upon the advise of Councilman Felipe Solis, they went to the
police station of San Fabian to report the incident.
 Javier was then brought to Dr. Mario Meneses to be treated. Thereafter, was brought to Dr.
Guillermo Padilla for a medico-legal examination.
 Upon the intercession of Councilman Solis, Urbano and Javier agreed to settle their differences.
Urbano promised to pay P700.00 for medical expenses of Javier. Hence, on October 27, 1980,
the two accompanied by Solis, appeared before the San Fabian Police to formalize their
amicable settlement.
 Urbano advanced P400.00 to Javier at the police station. On November 3, 1980, the additional
P300.00 was given to Javier in Urbano’s house in the presence of barangay captain Soliven.
 On November 14, 1980 (22 days after the incident), Javier was rushed to the Nazareth General
Hospital due to Lockjaw and convulsions. Dr. Edmundo Exconde, diagnosed it to be tetanus
toxin. The healing wound in Javier’s palm could have been infected by the tetanus.
 November 15, 1980 at exactly 4:18 pm, Javier died in the hospital.
 April 10, 1981 Filomeno Urbano was charged with the crime of homicide before the Circuit
Criminal Court in Dagupan City.
 Urbano pleaded “not guilty”. After the trial Urbano was found guilty.
o He was sentenced to suffer and indeterminate prison term from 12 years of prision
mayor as minimum, to 17 years 4 months 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum,
together with accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Marcelo
Javier, in amount of P12,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and
to pay costs.
 The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the convinction of Urbano on appeal but raised the
award of indemnity to the heirs of the deceased to P30,000.
 Urbano filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial.
o The trial was based on the affidavit of the Barangay Captain Soliven stating that he saw
Marcelo Javier catching fish in the shallow irrigation with some friends, and the next
thing he knew was, Javier died.
 The motion was denied.

ISSUE:
W/N there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier was wounded until his death wh ich
would exculpate Urbano from any liability for Javier’s death

RULING:

 Yes. There was an efficient intervening cause due to the fact that a tetanus, when contracted
will immediately show symptoms within 2-3 days, the lapse herewith is 22 days. There is a
likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to
take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier’s death
with which the petitioner had nothing to do.
 The appellate court acquitted the accused of the crime of homicide.
RATIO:

The case in question related to the application of Article 4 of the RPC, which provides that “Criminal
liability shall be incurred: 1) By any person committing a felony (delito) al though the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended…” Pursuant to this provision, “an accused is criminally
responsible for acts committed by him in violation of law and for all the natural and logical
consequences resulting therefrom”.
G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992

SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

FACTS:

 February 4, 1979 the ff people plotted to execute Bernardina Palangpangan in Lopez Jaena,
Misamis Occidental due to a land dispute:
o Sulpicio Intod
o Jorge Pangasian
o Santos Tubio
o Avelino Daligdig
o Salvador Mandaya
 All of these men went to Palangpangan’s house at 10:00 in the evening on the same date, they
were all armed. Mandaya pointed the location of Palangpangan’s house and they started firing
at the room. However, Palangpangan was in another city and her home was occupied by her
then son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No
one was hit by the gun fire.
 One witness testified that before the five men left the premises, they shouted: “We will kill you
(the witness) and especially Bernardina Palangpangan and we will come back if you were not
injured.”
 The RTC convicted Intod of Attempted Murder.
 The same was affirmed by the CA.
 The Petitioner sought the SC a modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for an
impossible crime.

ISSUE:

W/N the conviction of Intod may be modified according to the uncommitted crime deemed to be an
impossible crime

RULING:

 Yes. In the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, in Article 4 (2), expressly provided for impossible
crimes. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act
penalized by itself. Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is found in Article 4 (2)
of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and
legal impossibility. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.
 The petition was granted and the conviction was modified to guilty of an impossible crime
G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE TEMBLOR alias "RONALD," defendant-
appellant.

FACTS:

 December 30, 1980 at Talo-ao, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, accused Vicente Temblor with
Anecito Ellevera conspired with intent to kill, attack, and shoot with firearms, Julius Cagampang.
Hitting the latter on the vital parts of the body, thereby inflicting mortal wounds, causing direct
and instantaneous death.
 7:30 in the evening of December 30, 1980, while Cagampang, his wife and their two children,
were conversing in the store adjacent to their house in Barangay Talo-ao, Buenavista, Province
of Agusan del Norte, the accused Vicente Temblor alias Ronald, arrived and asked to buy a half -
pack of Hope cigarettes. While Cagampang was opening a pack of cigarettes, there was a sudden
burst of gunfire and Cagampang instantly fell on the floor, wounded and bleeding on the head.
His wife Victorina, upon seeing that her husband had been shot, shouted her husband's name
"Jul"!
 Two persons, one of whom she later Identified as the accused, barged into the interior of the
store through the main door and demanded that she brings out her husband's firearm. "Igawas
mo ang iyang armas!" ("You let out his firearm!") they shouted. The accused fired two more
shots at the fallen victim. Terrified, Victorina hurried to get the "maleta" (suitcase) where her
husband's firearm was hidden. She gave the suitcase to the accused who, after inspecting its
contents, took her husband's .38 caliber revolver, and fled.
 Temblor appealed.
 1981, Victorina was summoned to the Buenavista police station and identified the accused as
the man who killed her husband.
 The accused’s alibi was from 4pm in the afternoon of the said incidentdate, he and his father
had been in the house of Silverio Perol in Brgy. Camagong, Nasipit, Agusan Del Norte, where
they spent the night drinking over a slaughterd dog “pulutan”, until 8am in the morning the
following day, December 31, 1980.
 The accused’s accomplices were not apprehended, because they hid in the mountains as they
were admittedly members of the NPA (New People’s Army).
 Temblor surrendered to Mayor Dick Carmona of Nasipit during the mass surrender of dissidents
in August 1981. He was detained in the Buenavista Municipal Jail.
 The alibi was contested by the prosecutor and determined that he was at work on December
December 30, 1980 from 10:50 o'clock in the evening up to 7:00 o'clock in the morning of
December 31, 1980. The accused did not bother to overcome this piece of rebuttal evidence.
 The appeal was declared with no merit. On the ground that The settled rule is that the trial
court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses while testifying is generally binding on the
appellate court because of its superior advantage in observing their conduct and demeanor and
its findings, when supported by convincingly credible evidence as in the case at bar, s hall not be
disturbed on appeal.
  June 8, 1982, Temblor pleaded not guilty, after trial he was convicted and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. With accessory penalties thereof under Articles 41 and 42 of
RPC, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

ISSUE:

W/N the court erred in giving weight to the prosecution’s witness in positively identifying the accused as
the perpetrator.

RULING:

 NO. The minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitness Victorina Vda. de Cagampang
did not diminish her credibility, especially because she had positively Identified the accused as
her husband's assailant, and her testimony is corroborated by the other witnesses. Her
testimony is credible, probable and entirely in accord with human experience.
 Appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated alibi cannot prevail over the positive Identification
made by the prosecution witnesses who had no base motives to f alsely accuse him of the crime.
Furthermore, the rule is that in order for an alibi to be acceptable as a defense, it is not enough
that the appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; it must be
demonstrated beyond doubt that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime.
 Appellant's alleged lack of motive for killing Cagampang was rejected by the trial court which
opined that the defendant's knowledge that Cagampang possessed a firearm was motive
enough to kill him as killings perpetrated by members of the New People's Army for the sole
purpose of acquiring more arms and ammunition for their group are prevalent not only in
Agusan del Norte but elsewhere in the country. It is known as the NPA's "agaw armas"
campaign. Moreover, proof of motive is not essential when the culprit has been positively
Identified (People vs. Tan, Jr., 145 SCRA 615).
 The records further show that the accused and his companion fled after killing Cagampang and
taking his firearm. They hid in the mountains of Agusan del Norte. Their flight was an implied
admission of guilt (People vs. Dante Astor, 149 SCRA 325; People vs. Realon, 99 SCRA 422).
 WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects, except as to the civil
indemnity payable to the heirs of the Julius Cagampang which is increased to P30,000.00.
G.R. No. L-68969 January 22, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. USMAN HASSAN y AYUN, respondent.

FACTS:

 Usman Hassan was accused of murder for stabbing to death Ramon Pichel, Jr. y Uro, 24, single,
and a resident of Zamboanga City.
 At the time of his death on July 23,1981, the deceased was employed as manager of the sand
and gravel business of his father.
 On the other hand, Hassan was an illiterate, 15-year-old pushcart cargador.
 Usman was convicted on the bases of the testimony of a lone eyewitness for the prosecution
and the sloppiness of the investigation conducted by the police investigator, Police Corporal
Rogelio Carpio of the Homicide and Arson Section of the Zamboanga City Police Station, who
also testified for the prosecution.
 Jose Samson, he testified that he was with Ramon Pichel, Jr. at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening
of July 23, 1981; that he was a backrider in the motorcycle of Ramon when they went to buy
mangoes at Fruit Paradise near the Barter Trade Zone in Zamboanga City that while he was
selecting mangoes, he saw a person stab Ramon who was seated at his red Honda motorcycle
which was parked about two or three meters from the fruit stand where he Samson) was
selecting mangoes; that he saw the assailant stab Ramon "only once" and that after the
stabbing, the assailant rantowards the PNB Building. When asked at the cross-examination if he
knew the assailant, Samson said, "I know him by face but I do not know his name."
 He claimed that he was able to see the assailant because it was very bright there that Ramon
was facing the light of a petromax lamp, and that all these happened in front of the fruit stand a
— distance of about 6 to 7 meters from the side of the road.
 The person of Usman Hassan was brought along at the La Merced Funeral Homes for a
confrontation with victim’s companion, Jose Samson and in this confrontation, Jose Samson
positively Identified said Usman Hassan as the very person who stabbed the victim.
 Usman Hassan, on the other hand, denied the charges levelled against hub and admitted
ownership of said knife; claiming among other things that he used said knife for slicing mango es.
 A fact that looms large, though mutely to testify on the innocence of the accused but the
importance of which was brushed away by the trial judge was the presence of the accused near
the scene (about 100 to 150 meters away) soon after the stabbing (he testified at around 7:00
P.M. although Police Corporal Carpio stated it was 8:00 P.M.) where he was found sitting on his
pushcart with a companion. If he were the assailant, he would have fled. But the trial court
instead indulged in conjecture, foisting the probability that the accused 'was lulled by a false
sense of security in returning to the place (of the stabbing), when no police officers immediately
responded and appeared at the scene of the crime," adding 'there are numerous cases in the
past where criminals return to the scene of their crimes, for reasons only psychologist can
explain."

ISSUE:

W/N the identification of the lone witness is enough to convict the accused of murder

RULING:
 When the evidence for the prosecution and the evidence for the accused are weighed, the
scales must be tipped in favor of the latter. This is because of the constitutional presumtion of
innocence the accused enjoys as a counter-foil to the awesome authority of the State that is
prosecuting him.
 The element of doubt, if reasonable in this case, must operate against the inference of guilt the
prosecution would draw from its evidence. That evidence, as it happens, consists only of the
uncorroborated statement of the two policemen which, as previously observed, is flawed and
therefore suspect.
 And now as a penultimate observation, we could not help but note the total absence of motive
ascribed to Usman for stabbing Ramon, a complete stranger to him. While, as a general rule,
motive is not essential in order to arrive at a conviction, because, after all, motive is a state of
mind, procedurally, however, for purposes of complying with the requirement that a judgment
of guilty must stem from proof beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of motive on the part of the
accused plays a pivotal role towards his acquittal. This is especially true where there is doubt as
to the Identity of the culprit as when 'the Identification is extremely tenuous," as in this case.
 We cannot end this travail without adverting to the cavalier manner in whi ch the trial court
disregarded the claimed young age of Usman Hassan. The defense claims that the accused
Usman Hassan is a minor, basing such claim on the testimony of Lahunay Hassan, the mother of
said accused, who declared that her son Usman Hassan, who is one of her four (4) children, was
born in the year 1967. She testified that she was just told by a person coming from their place
about the year of the birth of her son Usman. However, on cross-examination, Lahunay Hassan
cannot even remember the date or year of birth of her other children.
 This simply means that the herein accused could either be 14 years of age or 21 years of age, or
any age in between those aforestated years. From the observation of this court, the accused
Usman Hassan was about 18 years of age at the time he committed this crime and this
observation is based on his personal appearance, his size and facial features and other personal
characteristics, hence he can not be classified as a youthful offender under Article. 189 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, as ammended by Presedential Decree No. 1179.
 Considering that the age of the accused could exempt him from punishment or cause the
suspension of his sentence under Articles 12 and 80, respectively of the Revised Penal Code, if
found guilty, more meticulousness and care should have been demanded of medical or scientific
sources, and less reliance on the observation of the judge as had happened in this case. The
preliminary findings of the dentist that the accused could be anywhere between fourteen to
twenty one years, despite the difficulty of arriving at an accurate determination due to Hassan's
mouth condition, would have placed the trial judge on notice that there is the probability that
the accused might be exempted from criminal liability due to his young age. All the foregoing
indicates that the accused had not been granted the concern and compassion with which the
poor, marginalized, and disadvantaged so critically deserve. It is when judicial and police
processes and procedures are thoughtlessly and haphazardly observed that cries of the law and
justice being denied the poor are heard. In any event, all this would not be of any moment now,
considering the acquittal of the accused herein ordered.
 WHEREFORE, the decision is hereby REVERSED, and the accused Usman Hassan y Ayun is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged. His release from confinement is hereby Ordered. Unless he is
held for another legal cause. With costs de oficio.