People vs.

Pugay
No. L-74324
Plaintiff: The People of the Philippines
Accussed: Fernando Pugay y Balcita & Benjamin Samson y Magdalena
Ponente: Medialdea, J.

November 17, 1988

IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE

Facts:
-

Deceased was Bayani Miranda, a 25 year old retardate who was friends with the accused,
Pugay.
May 19, 1982 a town fiesta fair was held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite. Sometime
after midnight, Eduardo Gabion was sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a comic book with
his friend Henry when the accused Pugay, Samson, and several others arrivedappearing to
be drunk from the festivities. Incidentally, deceased was also nearby. When the group saw the
deceased walking, they started making fun of him and made him dance by tickling him with a
piece of wood.
It was then that the accused Pugay, not content with what theyre doing with the deceased,
suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel and poured its
contents over the deceased. Gabion told not to do so while the latter was in the act of pouring.
The accused Samson then set the deceased on fire. The ferris wheel operator later arrived to
help douse the fire, as did several people near the scene. Pugay, Samson, Gabion, and five
others were brought to the municipal building, while the deceased was rushed to the hospital,
later succumbing to his injuries. After having his written statement set, Gabion was later on
released while the two accused were left in custody.
CFI of Cavite pronounced the two as guilty of murder, but credited to Pugay the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Both accused appealed the
said decision to the SC.

Issues/Held:
1. WoN the lower court erred in not using the statements taken from the accusedNO
- It was noted that their written statements were extracted just hours after the incident, and that
said statement did not impute Gabion to anything. This clearly contradicts their testimonies
later on which put the blame on Gabion.
- Also, Gabions straightforward, positive testimony was more convincing than that of the
unreliable, uncorroborated testimonies of the accused, thereby the written statements were
not utilized.
2. WoN the prosecution suppressed the other witnesses in to the incidentNO
- Considering that their testimonies would just be corroborative, their non-presentation does
not give rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse (to the
prosecutions stand) if produced.
- Besides, the matter as to whom to utilize is entirely for the prosecution to decide.
3. WoN Gabion is a credible eyewitnessYES

It was Gabions uncle, not the mother of the deceased, who asked for the witness to testify.
Also, Pugay admitted that they had no previous misunderstanding with Gabion. Gabion
clearly had no reason whatever to testify against the accused.

4. WoN there was conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose between the accusedNO
- There was no animosity between the accused and the deceased (they were in fact friends.)
Also, the meeting at the fair was purely accidental. Therefore, the accused can only be liable
for what he has done (meaning the liability is individual, not collective.)
o Pugay (the person who poured gasoline to the deceased) is guilty of homicide
through reckless imprudence. He knew that the liquid he poured was gas, and to
assert otherwise would be impossible, esp with the identifiable smell that liquid gas
emits. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every
undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his
companions. From U.S. vs. Maleza, a man must use common sense and exercise due
reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from
instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment.
o Samson (the person who lit the gas), on the other hand, is guilty of homicide as
penalized by Art. 249 of the RPC, with the mitigating circumstance of no intention to
commit so grave a wrong. He cannot be convicted of murder qualified by treachery as
there is adequate evidence to show that his act was merely a part of their fun-making.
There was no intention to kill the deceased.
*Also, both accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the amount mentioned by the lower court
(P43,940.00) plus P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Judgment affirmed with modification.