Urbano vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 72964, 7 January 1988
Criminal Law 1 Case Digest

FACTS:
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano (Urbano) was on his way to his ricefield when he
discovered that the place where he stored palay was flooded with water coming from an irrigation canal. When
he investigated the area, he saw Marcelino Javier (Javier) and Emilio Efre (Efre). Javier admitted that he opened
the irrigation canal. A quarrel ensued, and Urbano started to hack Javier with a bolo. Javier was wounded at the
right palm of his hand.
Upon intervention, Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano agreed to shoulder all the
expenses for the medication of the wound of Javier, as well as to pay also whatever loss of income Javier may
have suffered. Javier, on the other hand, signed a statement of his forgiveness towards Urbano and on that
condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed against Urbano.
After several weeks of treatments and medication, the doctor pronounced that the wound of Javier was
already healed. However, on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the hospital when he had sudden
lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found the condition to be caused by tetanus toxin which infected from the
healing wound in his right palm of his hand. The following day, on November 15, 1980, Javier died.
The heirs of Javier filed a case of homicide against Urbano. Urbano was charged with homicide and was
found guilty both by the trial court and on appeal by the Intermediate Appellate Court.
Urbano then filed a motion for a new trial based on the affidavit sworn by the Barangay Captain who
stated that he saw the deceased catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals on November 5. The motion was
denied by the respondent court. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier may be considered as the proximate cause of the
latters death.

HOLDING:
No, the wound inflicted by Urbano cannot be considered as the proximate cause of Javiers death.
The Court defined proximate cause as 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.
In this case, the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted
upon him by the accused. And since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused
caused the victims death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court ruled that Urbano is not liable for the death of Javier. Urbano is only liable for the physical
injuries inflicted to Javier through the wound on the right palm of his hand. The Court took into account the
average incubation period of tetanus toxin, and medical evidence indicated that patients affected with tetanus
experience its symptoms within 14 days. If, indeed, Javier had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound
inflicted by Urbano, he would not have experienced the symptoms on the 23 rd day after the hacking incident.
The medical findings lead 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. The infection
was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime. However, the act of Javier working in his farm where the soil is
filthy, using his own hands, is an efficient supervening cause which relieves Urbano of any liability for the death
of Javier. There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure
to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which
the petitioner had nothing to do.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The questioned decision of the then
Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED
of the crime of homicide.