People v.
Castillo  There is no merit in Castillo’s contention that the prosecution
June 29, 2007 | Ynares- Santiago, J.
Exempting Circumstances – Accident
Doctrine: “Accident” is an affirmative defense which the accused
is burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence. The
essential requisites for this exempting circumstance, are: (1) A
person is performing a lawful act; (2) With due care; (3) He causes
an injury to another by mere accident; (4) Without fault or
intention of causing it.
Case Summary: Appellant contends that assuming he was the one
who killed his wife, the same was accidental and not intentional.
However, the Court does not agree. By no stretch of imagination
could playing with or using a deadly sling and arrow be considered
as performing a lawful act. Thus, on this ground alone, appellant’s
defense of accident must be struck down because he was
performing an unlawful act during the incident.
Facts:
According to the narration of Guillermo, the father-in-law of the
appellant, Castillo:
 In the evening of 5 November 1993, between 9:00 o’clock to
10:00 o’clock, the accused-appellant came home drunk and
angry.
 Guillermo tried to subdue him and told him to take a rest, but
the accused did not heed his advice. Instead, Castillo took his
sling and arrow from the house ceiling.
 Guillermo transferred to the adjacent house of his daughter-
in-law, Yolanda.
 While in Yolanda’s house, Guillermo heard Consorcia
(Castillo’s wife) crying and, afterwards, shouting at Castillo.
 When Yolanda was on her way to check on Consorcia, she
saw Castillo carrying the bloodied body of Consorcia.
 Guillermo, Yolanda, and Castillo brought Consorcia to the
hospital.
 Castillo disappeared and did not enter the clinic where
Consorcia was rushed for treatment. And when Consorcia’s
sister later sought police assistance in searching for Castillo,
he was found by the police hiding inside a toilet at a nearby
barangay.
 Castillo wrote letters to the parents and sister of Consortia
asking for forgiveness. 
 defense miserably failed to discharge its burden of proof.
Castillo’s argument:
 He alleged that the pieces of circumstantial evidence on
which his conviction was based did not sufficiently establish
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution
failed to prove his motive in killing his wife.
 At the time of the incident, he and his drinking buddies were
all engaged in target shooting using the sling and arrow.
Hence, he surmised that any one of them could have shot the
victim.
 Even assuming that he was the one who killed his wife, the
same was accidental and not intentional.
 His arrest while hiding inside a toilet in the adjoining
barangay, while his wife was being treated in the hospital,
likewise does not prove his complicity since the prosecution
did not prove that he deliberately hid inside the toilet.
 The letters he sent to his father-in-law, mother- in-law and
sister-in-law where he asked for forgiveness should not be
considered as admission of guilt.
 Trial Court held Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of parricide. Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision. Castillo filed a petition to the SC.
Issue:
WON the fatal injury sustained by the victim was accidental. - NO
Ruling:
failed to prove motive in killing his wife. Intent to kill and not
motive is the essential element of the offense on which his
conviction rests.
 In the instant case, the following circumstances satisfactorily
established appellant’s intent to kill his wife:
o The killing was immediately preceded by a quarrel
between the appellant and his wife.
o It is well-established that the flight of an accused is
competent evidence to indicate his guilt, and flight,
when unexplained, as in this case, is a circumstance
from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.
o The extent of the physical injury inflicted on the
deceased manifests appellant’s intention to extinguish
life. (The victim sustained a punctured wound in the
neck, a vital organ, which fatally lacerated her jugular
vein causing massive hemorrhage.)
o As regards appellant’s act of carrying the body of his
wounded wife and bringing her to the hospital, the same
does not manifest innocence. It is merely an indication
of an act of repentance or contrition on the part of
appellant.
 The testimony of defense witness Galang supports the
prosecution’s contention that appellant was alone with his
wife at the time of the incident.
 There is no merit in appellant’s contention that assuming he
was the one who killed his wife, the same was accidental
and not intentional. The exempting circumstance of
accident is not applicable in the instant case. Article 12, par.
4 of the Revised Penal Code, provides:
ART. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. --
The following are exempt from criminal liability:
x xx x
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.”
 “Accident” is an affirmative defense which the accused is
burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence. The
The essential requisites for this exempting circumstance,
are:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
 By no stretch of imagination could playing with or using a
deadly sling and arrow be considered as performing a
“lawful act.” Thus, on this ground alone, appellant’s defense
of accident must be struck down because he was
performing an unlawful act during the incident.
 Trial court correctly found that mere possession of sling and
arrow is punishable under the law. The defense even failed
to rebut Guillermo’s testimony that the accused was
keeping said sling and arrow inside his house.
 By claiming that it was an accident, Castillo has the burden
of proof of establishing the presence of any circumstance
which may relieve him of responsibility, and to prove
justification, he must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s.
Castillo failed to provide any evidence that it was an
accident.
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.