8/15/2016

PeoplevsAgliday:140794:October16,2001:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.140794.October16,2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RICARDO AGLIDAY y TOLENTINO,

appellant.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which
materialdamageresultsbyreasonofaninexcusablelackofprecautiononthepartofthepersonperformingor
failingtoperformsuchact.Maliceistheantithesisofrecklessimprudence.Oncemaliceisproven,recklessness
disappears.
TheCase
BeforeusisanappealfromtheSeptember14,1997Decision[1]oftheRegionalTrialCourtofSanCarlos
City(Branch57)inCriminalCaseNo.SCC3054.TheassailedDecisiondisposedasfollows:
WHEREFORE,inthelightoftheforegoingconsideration,thecourtfindstheaccusedRicardoT.Aglidayguilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofparricideandherebysentenceshimtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaandto
indemnifytheheirsofthevictimintheamountoffiftythousandpesos(50,000.00).
ThePNPBayambang[,]PangasinanisdirectedtoturnovertheshotguntotheFirearmandExplosiveDivision,
CampCrame,QuezonCity.[2]
This case originated from theApril 22, 1999 Information,[3] in which Ricardo Agliday y Tolentino was
accusedofparricide,allegedlycommittedasfollows:
ThatonoraboutFebruary25,1999,intheevening,at[B]arangayNalsianSur,[M]unicipalityofBayambang,
[P]rovinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamed
accused,withintenttokill,didthenandthere,wil[l]fully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyshoothissonRichardV.
Aglidaywithashotgun,unlicensedcausinghisdeathshortlythereafterdueto[c]ardiorespiratoryarrest,
hypovolemicshock,gunshotwound,pt.ofentryatthe(L)upperinnerquadrantofgluteus,3x3cm.(+)
contusioncollar,asperCertificateofDeathissuedbyDr.RodAldenTamondong,M.D.,medicalofficerIII,
RegionIMedicalCenter,ArellanoSt.,DagupanCity,tothedamageandprejudiceofhislegalheirs.[4]
On arraignment, appellant, assisted by Atty. Bernardo S. Valdez, pleaded not guilty.[5] After trial in due
course,thelowercourtrenderedtheassailedDecision.Atty.CarlitoM.Soriano,counselforappellant,filedthe
NoticeofAppealonSeptember22,1999.[6]
TheFacts
VersionoftheProsecution
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/140794.htm

1/7

8/15/2016

PeoplevsAgliday:140794:October16,2001:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

In its Brief,[7] the Office of the Solicitor General summarized the prosecutions version of the facts as
follows:
ProsecutionwitnessConchitaAgliday,wifeofappellantReynaldoAgliday,testifiedthatabout8:00oclockon
theeveningofFebruary25,1999whilewashingdishesinthekitchenoftheirhouse,hersonRichardAgliday
wasshotwithashotgunbyherhusbandappellantRicardoAgliday(pp.45,tsn,July5,1999).Asaresult,her
sonRichardfellonhisbellyherhusbandappellantranaway.Althoughshocked,Conchitawasabletorushout
ofherhousetocallforhelp.RichardwasfirstbroughttotheSto.NioHospital,thentotheSanCarlosGeneral
Hospital,andfinallytotheRegionIHospitalinDagupanCity(pp.56,id.).
Beforetheshooting,Conchitaandherhusbandquarreledoverherworkingasalaundrywoman(p.7,id.).Her
son,Richard,atthetimeofhisdeath,wasonlynineteen(19)yearsoldandin4thyearcollege(p.9,id.).
ProsecutionwitnessReyAgliday,anothersonofappellant,testifiedthathewasintheirhouserestingona
woodenbedatthetimeoftheincidentinquestion(p.3,tsn,June18,1999).Reysawhisfatherappellantshoot
hisbrotherRichardwithashotgun,ashewasaboutfour(4)metersfromthem(p.4,id.).
Beforetheshootingincident,Reyrecounted[that]hismotherandhisfatherappellanthadaquarrel,buthedid
notinterfere.HisbrotherRichard,ontheotherhand,intervenedandforthatreasonappellantgothisshotgun
andshotRichard.Appellantsurrenderedtothebarangaycaptainwhoaccompaniedhimtothepoliceauthorities.
Reyexecutedaswornstatement(ExhibitA)ontheshootingincident(p.5,id.).
Dr.RodAldenTamondong,medicalhealthofficer,RegionIMedicalCenter,DagupanCitydeclaredthathe
attendedtothemedicalneedsofRichardAgliday.Richardcameinlookingverypale,weak,andsemiconscious
(p.3,tsn,July13,1999).Hediedattheemergencyroom.
Dr.Tamondongfoundagunshotwoundattheleftbuttockofthevictimwhichhadnopointofexithealso
foundmultiplemetallicobjectsthereinbasedonthecontusioncolorofthewoundandthexrayresult(pp.45,
id.).Hestatedthatthecauseofthevictimsdeathwascardiorespiratoryarrestsecondarytothedecreaseofthe
circulatingbloodofthevictim(pp.45,id.).Buthedidnotissueamedicalcertificateashewasthenonofficial
leaveheonlyissuedadeathcertificate(ExhibitD)(p.5,id.).[8]
VersionoftheDefense
Appellant,inhisBrief,[9]submitshisownnarrationoftheevents:
AppellantRicardoT.AglidayisabarangaytanodofNalsianSur,Bayambang,Pangasinan.
SometimeonFebruary25,1999,atorabout8:00oclockintheevening,appellantwasatthefirstfloorofhis
house.Hewascleaningahomemadeshotgunwhichheintendedtobringto[his]nightpatrolintheirbarangay,
withfellowbarangaytanods.
WhilehiswifeConchitaandhissonRichardwereabouttogoupstairs,andwhileappellantwascleaningthe
homemadeshotgun,thegunaccidentallywentoffandRichardsbuttockwashit.
Appellantwentnearhissonandembracedhim.AppellantandsomerelativesbroughtRichardtotheSto.Nino
HospitalatBayambang,Pangasinan.TheylatertransferredhimtotheSanCarlosGeneralHospital.Finally,they
broughthimtotheRegionIMedicalCenteratDagupanCity,whereheexpired.
Thereafter,appellantreturnedtoBayambang,Pangasinan.HedirectlywenttothehouseofBarangayCaptain
JoseMatabang,Jr.towhomhevoluntarilysurrendered.Thebarangaycaptainbroughttheappellantto[the]
policestationofBayambang,Pangasinan,withthehomemadeshotgunwhich[had]accidentallyhitRichard.[10]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/140794.htm

2/7

8/15/2016

PeoplevsAgliday:140794:October16,2001:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

RulingoftheTrialCourt
Facedwithtwoconflictingversionsofthefacts,thetrialcourtgavecredencetotheprosecutionwitnesses
whogavestraightforward,spontaneous,sincereandfrankaccountsoftheeventsthathadunfoldedbeforetheir
veryeyes.Becauseoftheirrelationshipwithappellant,therewasnoreasonforthemtotestifyfalselyagainst
him.Thefirstwitness(Rey)wasappellantssonwhowasthevictimsbrother,whiletheotherwitness(Conchita)
wasappellantswifewhowasthevictimsmother.
Thedefenseofappellantthatwhathappenedwasanaccidentalshootingwasdisbelievedbythetrialcourt.
Itviewedsuchstanceashisdesperateattempttoexculpatehimselffromtheconsequencesofhisacts.
Hence,thisappeal.[11]
TheIssues
Appellantsubmitsthefollowingissues:
FirstAssignmentofError
TheHonorableCourtaquoerredinitsfindingsoffactswhich[,]hadtheybeeninaccordancewiththe
evidenceadduced,willsufficetosupportajudgmentofacquittalforaccusedappellant.[12]
SecondAssignmentofError
TheHonorableCourtaquoerredinconvictingaccusedappellant[of]parricide.[13]
ThisCourtsRuling
Theappealisdevoidofmerit.
FirstIssue:CredibilityofWitnesses
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses despite his
avowals to the contrary. He claims that it should have believed him because he had absolutely no reason or
motivetokill,muchlessshoot,hisownsonwhomheconsideredtohavehadaverybrightfuture.Hefurther
allegesthatthecorroboratingtestimoniesofJoseMatabangandSPO1EmilioOpina,whowerenotrelatedtothe
partiesandhadabsolutelynomotivetotestifyfalselyagainsthim,weremorecrediblethanthoseofhiswifeand
otherson.
Wedisagree.Longsettledistheruleincriminaljurisprudencethatwhentheissueisoneofcredibilityof
witnesses,anappellatecourtwillnormallynotdisturbthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt.[14]Thatis,unless
thelowercourthasreachedconclusionsthatareclearlyunsupportedbyevidence,orunlessithasoverlooked
somefactsorcircumstancesofweightandinfluencewhich,ifconsidered,wouldaffecttheresults.[15]
Matabangs testimony was basically what appellant had told him and, hence, biased and limited. The
testimonyofOpinathathehadbeentoldbyConchitathattheshootingwasaccidentalwascontradictedby
herownstatementsinopencourtthatshewasstillinshockwhenthepoliceofficerconductedthepreliminary
investigation.Suchstatementstakenexparte, like affidavits, are held as inferior to testimonies given in open
court.[16]Thus,wefindnogroundinthecaseatbartooverturnthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/140794.htm

3/7

8/15/2016

PeoplevsAgliday:140794:October16,2001:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

SecondIssue:AccidentasanExemptingCircumstance
Appellantproteststhetrialcourtsrulingthathisdefenseofaccidentalshootingwasfabricated.Accordingto
him,hewascleaningtheshotgunthathewouldhaveusedfortheeveningpatrolwithotherbarangay tanods
when he accidentally touched the trigger and hit Richard, who was going up the stairs into the house with
Conchita.[17]Hethereforecontendsthatheshouldbeacquittedonthebasisoftheexemptingcircumstanceof
accidentunderArticle12(paragraph4)oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Wearenotpersuaded.Boththetrialcourtandthesolicitorgeneralrejectedthisdefenseonthebasisofthe
eyewitnesstestimoniesofConchitaandRey.UnderArticle12(paragraph4)oftheCode,criminalliabilitydoes
notariseincaseacrimeiscommittedby[a]nypersonwho,whileperformingalawfulactwithduecare,causes
aninjurybymereaccidentwithoutfaultorintentionofcausingit.Theexemptionfromcriminalliabilityunder
thecircumstanceshowingaccidentisbasedonthelackofcriminalintent.
Thedeclarationsofinnocencebyappellantarecontradictedbythetestimoniesofhiswifeandson.Onthe
witnessstand,Conchitarecountstheincidentasfollows:
Q:YousaidthatyouwereathomeonFebruary25,1999atabout8:00oclockintheeveningwhatwereyoudoingif
youcanstillremember?
A:Iwaswashingdishes,sir.
Q:Whiledoingso,doyourecalliftherewasanyunusualincidentthathappened?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Whatwasthatunusualincident?
A:Mysonwasshotbymyhusband,sir.
Q:Wheredidyourhusband[shoot]yourson?
A:Inthekitchen,sir.
Q:Whatweapondidyourhusbanduseinshootingyourson?
A:Shotgun,sir.[18]

InherSwornStatementgiventoSPO1EmilioOpinaoftheBayambangPoliceStation,shedeclared:
04.Q:Willyoupleasenarratetomebrieflyallyouknowabouttheincidentyouarereferringto?
A:That on or about 8:00 oclock in the evening o[n] February 25, 1999 while I and my husband RicardoAgliday y
Tolentino were quarreling in connection [with] his drinking (liquor) habit[,] my son Richard V. Agliday tried to
[pacify]usbutmyhusband,insteadoflistening,xxxgothisgun[from]thebedwherewearesleepingandshot
oursonRichardV.Agliday."[19]

Reycorroboratedhismotherstestimonythathisbrotherwasshotbytheirfather.Histestimonyproceeded
asfollows:
Q:OnFebruary25,1999atabout8:00oclockintheevening,doyourememberwhereyouwere?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Wherewereyouonthatdayand[atthat]time?
A:Iwasunderthehouserestingonawoodenbed,sir.

xxxxxxxxx
Q:Whileyouwereunderyourhouserestingdoyourememberiftherewasanyunusualincidentthathappened?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Whatwasthatunusualincident?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/140794.htm

4/7

8/15/2016

PeoplevsAgliday:140794:October16,2001:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

A:Mybrotherwasshotbymyfather,sir.
Q:Howfarwhereyouwhenyourfathershotyourbrother?
A:Aboutfour(4)meters,sir.
Q:Whatweapondidyourfatheruseinshootingyourbrother?
A:Ashotgun,sir.

xxxxxxxxx
Q:Wherewasyourmother,ConchitaatthetimeyourfathershotyourbrotherRichard?
A:Shewasthereandtheywerebothquarreling,sir.
Q:Theywerebothquarrelingbeforetheincidenthappened?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Andwhileyourfatherandmotherwerequarrelingwhatdidyoudo?
A:Ididnotinterfere[]itwasmybrotherwhointervene[d]betweenthemthatiswhymyfathergothisgunandshot
mybrother,sir.[20]

Before the accused may be exempted from criminal liability by reason of Article 12 (paragraph 4), the
followingelementsmustconcur:(1)apersonisperformingalawfulact(2)withduecare,and(3)hecausesan
injury to another by mere accident and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it.[21] For an accident to
becomeanexemptingcircumstance,theacthastobelawful.[22]Theactoffiringashotgunatanotherisnota
lawfulact.
Anaccidentisanoccurrencethathappensoutsidetheswayofourwill,andalthoughitcomesaboutthrough
someactofourwill,liesbeyondtheboundsofhumanlyforeseeableconsequences.[23]Itconnotestheabsence
ofcriminalintent.Intent isamental state, the existence of which is shown by apersonsovert acts.[24]Inthe
case at bar, appellant got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his son, who had intervened in the
quarrelbetweentheformerandConchita.Itmustalsobepointedoutthatthefirearmwasashotgunthatwould
nothavefiredoffwithoutfirstbeingcocked.Undoubtedly,appellantcockedtheshotgunbeforedischargingit,
showingaclearintenttofireitatsomeone.
TheResolution[25]datedApril22,1999,filedby4thAsst.ProvincialProsecutorEmilioR.Soriano,reads
thus:
[O]ntheeveningofFebruary25,1999atabout8:00oclock,complainantandherhusbandwerethenquarreling
inconnectionwithhisliquordrinkinghabit.Whiletheywerequarreling,theirsonRichardintervenedandtried
topacifyhisfatherwho[was]undertheinfluenceofliquor.Apparentlyangeredandnotlisteningtohisson,he
proceededinsidetheirbedroomandtookhisgunandthereaftershothissonRichardwhowastryingtopacify
them.Afterseeinghersonbeingshotbyherhusband,complainantranoutsideandcalledforhelp.xxx.
Aftercarefullyconsideringtheuncontrovertedevidenceadducedbycomplainant,undersignedsufficientlyfinds
aprobablecausefor[p]arricidewiththeuseofanunlicensedfirearmxxx.[26]
Appellantcontendsthatsincehewasonlynegligent,heshouldhavebeenconvicted,notofparricide,but
onlyofrecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicide.[27]
Wedisagree.Recklessimprudenceconsistsofvoluntarilydoingorfailingtodo,withoutmalice,anactfrom
which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such act. Past jurisprudential cases of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicidewereasfollows:(1)exhibitingaloadedrevolvertoafriend,whogotkilledbytheaccidentaldischarge
arisingfromnegligenthandling(2)dischargingafirearmfromthewindowofoneshouseandkillinganeighbor
who,atjustthatmoment,leanedoverabalconyfrontand(3)firinga.45caliberpistoltwiceintheairtostopa
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/140794.htm

5/7

8/15/2016

PeoplevsAgliday:140794:October16,2001:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

fistfightand,asthefightcontinued,firinganothershotatthegroundbut,afterthebulletricocheted,hittinga
bystanderwhodiedthereafter.[28]
Intent is not lacking in the instant case. Appellants external acts prove malice or criminal intent. A
deliberateintenttodoanunlawfulactisinconsistentwithrecklessimprudence.[29]
InPeoplev.Belbes,[30]theCourtfoundnorecklessimprudenceintheshootingofastudentwho,intheact
ofdestroyingtheschoolsbamboowall,hadbeencaughtbyapolicemanwhowasrespondingtoareportthat
somebody was causing trouble in a school affair. The policemans action cannot be characterized as reckless
imprudence,becausetheshootingwasintentional.Theaccusedhadintendedtofireatthevictimandinfacthit
onlythelatter.Inthiscase,resentinghissonsmeddlinginhisargumentwithhiswife,appellantpurposelytook
hisgunandshothisson.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against
appellant.
SOORDERED.
Melo,(Chairman),Vitug,andSandovalGutierrez,JJ.,concur.
[1]PennedbyJudgeBienvenidoR.Estrada.
[2]Rollo,p.20.
[3]Signedby4thAsst.Prov.Pros.EmilioR.Sorianoibid.,p.6.
[4]Rollo,p.6.
[5]OrderofMay27,1999records,p.25.
[6]Rollo,p.21.
[7]SignedbyAsst.Sol.Gens.CarlosN.OrtegaandMariaAuroraP.CortesandSol.EvaristoM.Padilla.
[8]AppelleesBrief,pp.35rollo,pp.6365.
[9]AppellantsBriefwassignedbyAtty.Soriano.
[10]Rollo,p.40.
[11]ThecasewasconsideredsubmittedfordecisionuponthisCourtsreceiptonMarch29,2001ofAppelleesBrief.AppellantsBrief
wasfiledonJanuary11,2001.Thefilingofareplybriefwasdeemedwaived,asnonehadbeenfiledwithinthereglementaryperiod.
[12]Rollo,pp.4041.
[13]Ibid.,p.43.
[14]Peoplev.Llaguno,285SCRA124,135,January28,1998Peoplev.Aquino,284SCRA369,375,January16,1998.
[15]Peoplev.Aquino,ibid.
[16]Peoplev.Agbayani,284SCRA315,342,January16,1998.
[17]TSN,August18,1999,pp.34.
[18]TSN,July5,1999,pp.47.
[19]Exh.Crecords,p.7.
[20]TSN,June18,1999,pp.35.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/140794.htm

6/7

8/15/2016

PeoplevsAgliday:140794:October16,2001:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

[21]Reyes,TheRevisedPenalCode,Vol.I,1998ed.,p.225Aquino,TheRevisedPenalCode,Vol.I,1987ed.,p.226Gregorio,
FundamentalsofCriminalReview,1988ed.,p.63.
[22]Peoplev.NepomucenoJr.,298SCRA450,459,November11,1998.
[23]Reyes,pp.227228Gregorio,p.63.
[24]Sorianov.People,88Phil.368,374,March19,1951U.S.v.Mendoza,38Phil.691,693,September30,1918Peoplev.Mabug
at,51Phil.967,969970,August10,1926.
[25]RTCRecords,pp.34.
[26]RTCRecords,p.3.
[27]Rollo,p.44.
[28]Peoplev.Belbes,GRNo.124670,June21,2000,p.8,citingAquino,TheRevisedPenalCode,Vol.3,1988ed.,p.604USv.
Reodique,32Phil.458,December7,1915Peoplev.Nocum,77Phil.1018,February25,1947andLampav.People,73Phil.82,
August6,1941.
[29]Peoplev.CastilloJr.,275SCRA752,757,July21,1997.
[30]GRNo.124670,June21,2000,p.8.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/140794.htm

7/7