Urbano vs IAC Court of Dagupan City, Third Judicial

District.
Filomeno Urban guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide. The appellant filed a motion for
reconsideration and/or new trial
Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at
motion was denied. Hence, this petition
Barangay Anonang
his palay flooded with water coming from
lower courts ruled that Javier's death was
the irrigation canal
the natural and logical consequence of
there he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe
Urbano's unlawful act.
cutting grass. He asked them who was
responsible for the opening of the irrigation
Appellate court ruled that The claim of
canal and Javier admitted that he was the
appellant that there was an efficient cause
one. Urbano then got angry and demanded
which supervened from the time the
that Javier pay for his soaked palay
deceased was wounded to the time of his
Urbano who hacked him again hitting Javier
death, which covers a period of 23 days
on the left leg with the back portion of said
, the proximate cause of the victim's death
bolo, causing a swelling on said leg. When
was the wound which got infected with
Urbano tried to hack and inflict further
tetanus. And the settled rule in this
injury, his daughter embraced and prevented
jurisdiction is that an accused is liable for all
him from hacking Javier.
the consequences of his unlawful act.
Erfes together with Javier went to the
police station of San Fabian to report the
Appellant's allegation that the proximate
incident. As suggested by Corporal Torio,
cause of the victim's death was due to his
Javier was brought to a physician
own negligence in going back to work
Urbano promised to pay P700.00 for the
without his wound being properly healed, and
medical expenses of Javier.
lately, that he went to catch fish in dirty
on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed
irrigation canals
to the Nazareth General Hospital
had lockjaw and was having convulsions The SC rulethat Dr. Mario Meneses found
caused by tetanus toxin. no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier
got infected with tetanus when after two
In an information dated April 10, 1981, weeks he returned to his farm and tended
Filomeno Urbano was charged with the crime his tobacco plants with his bare hands
of homicide before the then Circuit Criminal exposing the wound to harmful elements like
tetanus germs.
"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
The infection was, therefore, distinct and
foreign to the crime
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.
medical findings, however, lead us 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
And if an independent negligent act or
defective condition sets into operation the
instances which result in injury because of
the prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the proximate
cause."
ACQUITTED
People vs hilario
Carlos Reyes
while relaxing with his friend in front of a
store, he was subjected to a treacherous
assault by two brothers and their cumpadre.
It turned out the three mistakenly bent
their terror on him --- the one they really
planned to kill was his friend.
stab one CARLOS REYES Y LASCANO
thereby inflicting upon the latter serious
physical injuries which directly caused his
death.
saw Berong and the victim Carlos Reyes in
front of the store squatting and talking to
each other. Both were wearing white shirts.
A little later, Berong removed his white
shirt
Then he saw Rodrigo handing a bolo to his
brother Rodolfo and an ice-pick one foot
long to their cumpadre, saying at the same
time, "The one in white shirt." In a swift,
sudden motion, the cumpadre bluntly
stabbed Carlos Reyes on the chest,
arose the suspicion of the brothers Hilario
who feared that Danilo would blow the
whistle on them.
saw Greg frequenting the house of Danilo.
. On April 22, 1991 at about 8 o'clock in
the evening, Rodrigo waited in ambush and
hacked him repeatedly on the head, and left
and right arms.
Rodrigo stated that
The reason Danilo might have dragged him in
this case was because the former harbored a
grudge against him. Trial court convicted
him as principal of murder.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
STAR WITNESS DANILO
MANZANARES' TESTIMONY
WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY
FABRICATED AND
REHEARSED.
Rodrigo interposed this appeal
STAR WITNESS DANILO MANZANARES
TESTIMONY WAS UNCORROBORATED BY
THOSE WHO WERE LIKEWISE PRESENT AT
THE STORE.
COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ALIBI
OF THE ACCUSED THAT HE WAS WITH
THE ROVING TEAM OF BARANGAY
TANODS ON THAT FATEFUL NIGHT
The evidence also sufficiently demonstrates
the existence of conspiracy in the execution
of the crime
If an express or implied conspiracy is proven,
then all the conspirators may be regarded as
co-principals regardless of the extent of
who could have corroborated the testimony
of star witness Danilo
We have constantly ruled that the
testimony of a single witness if credible
would already suffice to sustain a
conviction.17
Basic is the rule that positive identification
prevails over alibi.22
GUILTY of MURDER qualified by treachery
People vs tadeo
Michael Tadeo was drinking with the
deceased Mayolito Cabatu
after five (5) hours of imbibing alcohol,

their participation in the execution of the Mayolito was so dead drunk that he excused
5
crime. Their liability is collective or joint. himself and proceeded to the pavement
adjacent to Nicomedes Cabacungan's house
According to Art. 4 of the Revised Penal
Mayolito shouted "barako," apparently to
Code, criminal liability is incurred by any
tease accused-appellant and titillate him into
person committing a felony although the
a "fight"
wrongful act done be different from that
Drunk and wobbly too, accused-appellant
which is intended. One who commits an
Michael Tadeo instantaneously grabbed a beer
intentional felony is responsible for all the
bottle and tried to whack Mayolito with it
consequences which may naturally or logically
on the head.
result therefrom
But Ricky Cardona and Florencia Cabatu
7
In legal contemplation, the act of one is
quickly intervened to prevent accused-
the act of all.8 Hence, all the three
appellant from inflicting harm upon
accused are liable as principals for the
Mayolito. Accused-appellant briskly went
death of the victim Carlos Reyes
home exclaiming, "Aguray kadta a!" which
. The rule is well-settled that delay in
means "Wait, I will come back!" Then he
reporting what a witness knows about the
hastily returned clutching a .38 cal. revolver
crime does not render his testimony false
and confronted Mayolito, Ricky and Florencia
Appellant next puts the prosecution to task
why they were intervening. He shot
for its failure to present other witnesses
mayolito 6 times and went back to his indicating that the gun he used was
house to reload his gun and then shot unlicensed.

florencia on her left buttock.

barangay kapitan of Sto. Domingo, Quirino, the execution of the criminal act must come
Isabela, reported the crime to the police with sober thought and reflection upon the
precinct resolution to carry out the criminal intent

The father yielded a gun to the during the space of time sufficient to arrive

policemen which he said was the weapon at a calm judgment.

used in the crime, while accused-appellant accused-appellant cannot be accused of
i[5]
turned himself in. treachery. Under this state, he did not
have the time nor the proper disposition to

Michael Tadeo was accordingly charged with reflect on the means or mode of attack for

murder for the fatal shooting of Mayolito it to be said that he deliberately and

Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23-498), consciously pulled out his gun and fired

frustrated murder for the injury sustained Furthermore, the heated exchanges
by Florencia Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23- between him and the deceased prior to the
494), and violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, PD attack must have placed the latter on his
1866, or qualified illegal possession of guard, hence, we cannot rule that Mayolito

firearm, i.e Cabatu was caught completely by surprise

when accused-appellant took up arms against
offered self-defense as his version of the
him.
incident.
the court For there to be treachery by reason of
the suddenness and unexpectedness of the
convicted accused-appellant of the crimes
attack, there must have been no warning of
charged and sentenced him to reclusion
any sort to the deceased or offended party.
perpetua
This crime which has been erroneously labeled
accused-appellant
as "frustrated murder" lacks the twin
but questions the appreciation of the elements of aleviosa: (a) that at the time
qualifying circumstances of treachery and
of the attack, the victim was not in a
evident premeditation, and claims that he
position to defend himself; and, (b) that
should instead be held guilty of homicide and
frustrated homicide only Further, he insists the offender consciously adopted the

that the trial court erroneously disregarded particular means, method or form of attack
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary employed by him.
surrender in imposing the proper penalties, As shown above, the actual nature of the
including the absence of any evidence wound on the left buttock of Florencia
Cabatu indicated that it was not fatal nor
that it was infected with tetanus at the
time it was inflicted.
Hence, we cannot conclude that all the acts
of execution had been performed by accused-
appellant to kill the hapless woman, for to
classify the crime in the frustrated stage,
the rule is that the probable death of the
victim must be the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the wounds inflicted
upon him by the accused
The trial court also erred in not crediting
accused-appellant with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
requisites of voluntary surrender as a
mitigating circumstance, namely: (a) the
offender was not actually arrested; (b) he
surrendered to a person in authority or to
an agent of a
person in authority; and, (c) his surrender
was voluntary.ii[
"[i]f homicide or murder is committed with
the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use
of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance,"
the Informations for murder and frustrated
murder which is necessary under our present
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.iv[19]
Moreover, even if alleged, the circumstance
cannot be retroactively applied to prejudice
accused-appellant
we find accused-appellant guilty of
HOMICIDE and, considering the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
In Crim. Case No. 23-494 we find accused-
appellant guilty of ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
and, considering the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender,
AFFIRMED.
The conviction of accused-apellant Michael
Tadeo in Crim. Case No. 23-499 for illegal
possession of firearm used in the commission
of murder and frustrated murder, i.e.,
violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, PD 1866, and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the accused
is ACQUITTED

where murder or homicide was

committed, the penalty for illegal possession
of firearms is no longer imposable since it
becomes merely a special aggravating
iii[18]
circumstance.

The use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be

considered however as a special aggravating
circumstance in Crim. Case No. 23-498 and
Crim. Case No. 23-494. For one, it was
not alleged as an aggravating circumstance in
i[5]
Id., p. 8.
ii[16]
People v. Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, 14 December 2001; People v. Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, 17 October
2001; People v. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, 6 July 2000, 335 SCRA 232.
iii[18]
People v. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 133489 & 143970, 15 January 2002.
iv[19]
People v. Candido, G.R. Nos. 134072-73, 10 June 2002.

Intod vs ca
attempted murder.
He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that
Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.
. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out, however, that
Palangpangan was in another City
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 (sic) you were not injured". 2
After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.

Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions
riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible.
Respondent People of the Philippines argues that the crime was not impossible. Instead, the facts were
sufficient to constitute an attempt and to convict Intod for attempted murder. Respondent alleged that there was
intent. Further, in its Comment to the Petition, respondent pointed out that:
The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment (Art.
4(2), Revised Penal Code), but due to a cause or accident other than petitioner's and his accused's own
spontaneous desistance
. To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment.
, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime
. It is well settled principle of criminal law in this country that where the criminal result of an
attempt is not accomplished simply because of an obstruction in the way of the thing to be
operated upon, and these facts are unknown to the aggressor at the time, the criminal attempt is
committed.
. . 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
Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime