Urbano vs IAC
deceased was wounded to the time of his
Filomeno Urban guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide.
Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at
Barangay Anonang
his palay flooded with water coming from
the irrigation canal
there he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio
Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who
was responsible for the opening of the
irrigation canal and Javier admitted that
he was the one. Urbano then got angry
and demanded that Javier pay for his
soaked palay
Urbano who hacked him again hitting
Javier on the left leg with the back portion
of said bolo, causing a swelling on said
leg. When Urbano tried to hack and inflict
further injury, his daughter embraced and
prevented him from hacking Javier.
Erfes together with Javier went to the
police station of San Fabian to report the
incident. As suggested by Corporal Torio,
Javier was brought to a physician
Urbano promised to pay P700.00 for the
medical expenses of Javier.
on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed
to the Nazareth General Hospital
had lockjaw and was having convulsions
caused by tetanus toxin.
In an information dated April 10, 1981,
Filomeno Urbano was charged with the
crime of homicide before the then Circuit
Criminal Court of Dagupan City, Third
Judicial District.
The appellant filed a motion for
reconsideration and/or new trial
motion was denied. Hence, this petition
lower courts ruled that Javier's death was
the natural and logical consequence of
Urbano's unlawful act.
Appellate court ruled that The claim of
appellant that there was an efficient cause
which supervened from the time the
death, which covers a period of 23 days
, the proximate cause of the victim's death
was the wound which got infected with
tetanus. And the settled rule in this
jurisdiction is that an accused is liable for
all the consequences of his unlawful act.
Appellant's allegation that the proximate
cause of the victim's death was due to his
own negligence in going back to work
without his wound being properly healed,
and lately, that he went to catch fish in
dirty irrigation canals
The SC rulethat Dr. Mario Meneses found
no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier
got infected with tetanus when after two
weeks he returned to his farm and tended
his tobacco plants with his bare hands
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 their participation in the
execution of the crime. Their liability is
collective or joint.5
According to Art. 4 of the Revised Penal
Code, criminal liability is incurred by any
person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that
which is intended. One who commits an
intentional felony is responsible for all the
consequences which may naturally or
logically result therefrom
7
In legal contemplation, the act of one is
the act of all.8 Hence, all the three
accused are liable as principals for the
death of the victim Carlos Reyes
. The rule is well-settled that delay in
reporting what a witness knows about the
crime does not render his testimony false
Appellant next puts the prosecution to
task for its failure to present other
witnesses 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,
Mayolito was so dead drunk that he
excused himself and proceeded to the
pavement adjacent to Nicomedes
Cabacungan's house
Mayolito shouted "barako," apparently to
tease accused-appellant and titillate him
into a "fight"
Drunk and wobbly too, accused-appellant
Michael Tadeo instantaneously grabbed a
beer bottle and tried to whack Mayolito
with it on the head.
But Ricky Cardona and Florencia Cabatu
quickly intervened to prevent accused-
appellant from inflicting harm upon
Mayolito. Accused-appellant briskly went
home exclaiming, "Aguray kadta a!"
which means "Wait, I will come back!"
Then he hastily returned clutching a .38
cal. revolver and confronted Mayolito,
Ricky and Florencia why they were
intervening. He shot mayolito 6 times and
went back to his house to reload his gun
and then shot florencia on her left buttock.
barangay kapitan of Sto. Domingo,
Quirino, Isabela, reported the crime to the
police precinct
The father yielded a gun to the
policemen which he said was the weapon
used in the crime, while accused-appellant
turned himself in.i[5]
Michael Tadeo was accordingly charged
with murder for the fatal shooting of
Mayolito Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23-498),
frustrated murder for the injury sustained
by Florencia Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23-
494), and violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, PD
1866, or qualified illegal possession of
firearm, i.e
offered self-defense as his version of the
incident.
the court
convicted accused-appellant of the crimes
charged and sentenced him to reclusion
perpetua
accused-appellant
but questions the appreciation of the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation, and claims that he
should instead be held guilty of homicide
and frustrated homicide only Further, he
insists that the trial court erroneously
disregarded the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender in imposing the
proper penalties, including the absence of
any evidence indicating that the gun he
used was unlicensed.
the execution of the criminal act must
come with sober thought and reflection
upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
accused-appellant cannot be accused of
treachery. Under this state, he did not
have the time nor the proper disposition to
reflect on the means or mode of attack for
it to be said that he deliberately and
consciously pulled out his gun and fired
Furthermore, the heated exchanges
between him and the deceased prior to
the attack must have placed the latter on
his guard, hence, we cannot rule that
Mayolito Cabatu was caught completely by
surprise when accused-appellant took up
arms against him.
For there to be treachery by reason of
the suddenness and unexpectedness of
the attack, there must have been no
warning of any sort to the deceased or
offended party.
This crime which has been erroneously
labeled as "frustrated murder" lacks the
twin elements of aleviosa: (a) that at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and, (b) that
the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of
attack employed by him.
As shown above, the actual nature of the we find accused-appellant guilty of
wound on the left buttock of Florencia HOMICIDE and, considering the mitigating
Cabatu indicated that it was not fatal nor circumstance of voluntary surrender
that it was infected with tetanus at the In Crim. Case No. 23-494 we find accused-
time it was inflicted. appellant guilty of ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
Hence, we cannot conclude that all the and, considering the mitigating
acts of execution had been performed by circumstance of voluntary surrender,
accused-appellant to kill the hapless
AFFIRMED.
woman, for to classify the crime in the
frustrated stage, the rule is that the The conviction of accused-apellant Michael
probable death of the victim must be the Tadeo in Crim. Case No. 23-499 for illegal
direct, natural and logical consequence of possession of firearm used in the
the wounds inflicted upon him by the commission of murder and frustrated
accused murder, i.e., violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, PD
The trial court also erred in not crediting 1866, and sentencing him to reclusion
accused-appellant with the mitigating perpetua is REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
circumstance of voluntary surrender and the accused is ACQUITTED
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,"

where murder or homicide was

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