ARGUMENT

Bimby, the son of Kris, died because of the treatment procedure conducted by Carla and three
others to drive away the evil spirit that was in the body of Bimby. Carla and the three others who were
part of the ritual must be convicted for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide even if the
information charges them with murder.

Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent parts:

SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. When there is variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
charged which is included in the offense proved.

SEC. 5.When an offense includes or is included in another. An offense charged necessarily

includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former,
as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

The due recognition of the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation through the criminal complaint or information is decisive of whether his
prosecution for a crime stands or not. Nonetheless, the right is not transgressed if the information
sufficiently alleges facts and omissions constituting an offense that includes the offense established to
have been committed by the accused, in this case, reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that reckless imprudence consists
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing such act. Compared to
intentional felonies, such as homicide or murder, what takes place of the element of malice or intention
to commit a wrong or evil is failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill taking into
account his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other
circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.

In People v. Fernando, the accused was charged with, and convicted of, murder by the trial
court. On appeal, this Court modified the judgment and held the accused liable for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide after finding that he did not act with criminal intent.

The Supreme Court held that a person cannot be held guilty of murder if there is no malicious
intent.

In the case of People v. Fernando, no intent was established and he is guilty only because he
failed to exercise the ordinary diligence which, under the circumstances, he should have by investigating
whether or not the unknown man was really what he thought him to be. In firing the shot, without first
exercising reasonable diligence, he acted with reckless negligence.

The crime committed by the accused, therefore, is homicide through reckless negligence.
 In People v. Carmen, a virtually identical case, conviction modified to reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. Killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill. When
death occurs, it's presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted. In murder
qualified by treachery, it's required only that there is treachery in the attack and this is true even if the
offender has no intent to kill the person assaulted.

One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally and logically result therefrom, weather foreseen or intended or not.

Intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act. The presumption of criminal intent
may arise from the proof of criminal act. Hence they are liable for all the direct and natural consequence
of their unlawful act even if the ultimate result had not been intended.

The strange procedure resulted in the death of the boy even though the accused-appellant had
no criminal intent to kill the boy. Liability arises from reckless imprudence because they ought that to
know their actions would not bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and not of murder.

Here, the death of the son of Kris resulted from the negligence of Carla and the three others.
The purpose of the ritual is to save the boy from the evil spirit and the accused had no criminal intent to
kill the boy. But such argument is of no moment following the decided case (People v. Carmen) cited
above.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the accused must be convicted for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide even if the information charges them with murder.