1JD2 - INVICTUS
People v. Macal
MAIN TOPIC: Exempting Circumstances; Accident
I. Facts of the case
In February 12, 2003 in Tacloban City, Manuel Macal (Manuel) did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with evident premeditation, that is, having
conceived and deliberated to kill his wife, Auria Macal (Auria), with whom he was
united in lawful wedlock, armed with an improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle) and
a kitchen knife, stab Auria on the front portion of her body inflicting a fatal wound
which caused her death, which incident happened inside the bedroom of the house
they are residing.
To prove the accusation, Angeles Ytac (Angeles), the mother of Auria, narrated that
Auria and Manuel (accused-appellant) got married in March 2000, and they begot two
(2) children. Angeles claimed that, that the time of the incident, they were all living
together in a house located in V & G Subdivision, Tacloban City.
Angeles testified that at around 1.20 AM of February 12, 2003, she was walking home
along with her children, including Auria, after playing bingo at a local peryahan.
Along the way, Angeles and her group met Manuel, and the latter joined them in
walking back to their house. When they arrived at the house, the group proceeded to
the living room except for Auria and the Manuel who went straight to their bedroom,
about four (4) meters away from the living room. Shortly thereafter, Angeles heard
her daughter Auria shouting, “Mother, help me, I am going to be killed.” Upon
hearing Auria’s plea for help, Angeles and the rest of her companions raced towards
the bedroom but they found the door of the room locked. Arvin kicked open the door
of the bedroom and there they all saw a bloodied Auria on one side of the room. Next
to Auria was Manuel who was then trying to stab himself with the use of an
improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle). Auria was immediately taken to a hospital,
but was pronounced dead on arrival. Angeles declared that the Manuel jumped over
the fence and managed to escape before the policemen could reach the crime scene.
Moreover, Erwin Silvano (Erwin) corroborated Angeles’ testimony that Auria was
killed by Manuel, as he claimed that he was part of the group that went to Angeles’
residence on that fateful morning.
G.R. NO: 211062
ARTICLE 12(4); Accident
January 13, 2016
People v. Macal
The prosecution formally offered in evidence the Certificate of Death wherein it is
indicated that Auria died of hemorrhagic shock secondary to stab wound.
On the other hand, in the version of the defense, Manuel, the accused-appellant,
admitted his relationship with Auria. He did not, however, deny the factual allegations
of the prosecution that he stabbed his wife, resulting in the latter’s death, but seeks
exoneration from criminal liability by interposing the defense that the stabbing was
accidental and not intentional.
In his version of the incident, on February 12, 2003, Manuel arrived home in V & G
Subdivision, Tacloban City from Manila. Before he could reach the bedroom, he was
warned by Arvin, his brother-in-law, not to go inside the bedroom where his wife was
with a man for he might be killed. Ignoring Arvin’s admonition, Manuel kicked the
door but it was opened from the inside. After the bedroom door was opened, Manuel
saw Auria and a man seated beside each other conversing. Furious by what he had
seen, the accused-appellant went out of the room, got a knife and delivered a stab
blow towards the man but the latter was shielded by Auria, which caused the stab
blow to land on Auria. After Auria was accidentally stabbed, the man ran outside and
fled. Manuel testified that he wounded himself on the chest out of frustration for not
killing the man. He then left the house and went to Eastern Visayas Regional Medical
Center (EVRMC) for medical treatment.
To support the accused-appellant’s claim that he brought himself to a hospital on
February 12, 2003, Nerissa, the Administrative Officer/OIC Records Officer of
EVRMC, was presented as witness for the defense. The latter confirmed that the
accussed-appellant sustained a three-centimeter wound located at the left parasternal,
level of the 5th ICS non-penetrating and another lacerated wound in the left anterior
chest.
The RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide, and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
II. Issue/s
- Whether or not Manuel can invoke Article 12, par 4 of the RPC to release
him from criminal liability
PONENTE: PEREZ, J..
DIGEST MAKER: Chrystina Denise Urbano
 1JD2 - INVICTUS
People v. Macal
- Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable dount of the crime of parricide
III. Ratio/Legal Basis
YES/NO.
- No. The defense of accident presupposes lack of intention to kill. This
certainly does not hold true in the instant case based on the testimony of the
accused-appellant. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses, who were then
within hearing distance from the bedroom, testified that they distinctly
heard Auria screaming that she was going to be killed by the accussed-
appellant.
Given these testimonies, the accused-appellant’s defense of accident is negated as he
was carrying out an unlawful act at the time of the incident. It also bears stressing that
in raising the defense of accident, the accused-appellant had the inescapable burden
of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, of accidental infliction of injuries on
the victim. In so doing, the accused-appellant had to rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. As aptly pointed out
by the CA, the defense failed to discharge the burden of proving the elements of
exempting circumstance of accident that would otherwise free the accused-appellant
from culpability. Aside from the accused-appellant’s self-serving statement, no other
proof was adduced that will substantiate his defense of accidental stabbing.
Further, contrary to what the accused-appellant wants the Court to believe, his
actuations closely after Auria was stabbed tell a different story. If Auria was really
accidentally stabbed by him, the accused-appellant’s natural reaction would have been
to take the lead in bringing his wife to a hospital. Instead, his priority was to come up
with an improvised bladed weapon that he could use to hurt himself. Additionally, the
fact that the accused-appellant ran away from the crime scene leaving Auria’s
relatives and neighbors to tend to his dying wife is indicative of his guilt.
- Yes. The Court affirms the conviction of the accused-appellant with
modifications. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendants
or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Among the
three requisites, the relationship between the offender and the victim is the
G.R. NO: 211062
ARTICLE 12(4); Accident
January 13, 2016
People v. Macal
most crucial. This relationship is what actually distinguishes the crime of
parricide from homicide. In parricide involving spouses, the best proof of
the relationship between the offender and victim is their marriage
certificate. Oral evidence may also be considered in proving the
relationship between the two as long as such proof is not contested.
In this case, the spousal relationship between Auria and the accused-appellant
is beyond dispute. As previously stated, the defense already admitted that Auria
was the legitimate wife of the accused-appellant during the pretrial conference.
Such admission was even reiterated by the accused-appellant in the course of
trial of the case. Nevertheless, the prosecution produced a copy of the couple’s
marriage certificate which the defense admitted to be a genuine and faithful
reproduction of the original. Hence, the key element that qualifies the killing to
parricide was satisfactorily demonstrated in this case.
IV. Dispositive Portion
WHEREFORE, the CA’s decision dated June 28, 2013 in C.A.- G.R. CEB CR-
H.C. No. 01209, finding accused-appellant, Manuel Macal y Bolasco, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim, Auria Ytac Macal, the
amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. In
addition, all the monetary awards shall earn an interest at the legal rate of 6%
per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
V. Doctrine
- Art. 12, paragraph 4 states that…
The essential requisites of accident as an exempting circumstance are: (1) a person is
performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere
accidentl and (4) without fault or intention of causing it.
PONENTE: PEREZ, J..
DIGEST MAKER: Chrystina Denise Urbano