Rollie Calimutan vs. People of the Philippines - GR No.

152133 Case Digest

FACTS:
That on or about February 4, 1996, in the morning thereof, at sitio Capsay, Barangay Panique,Municipality of Aroroy,
Province of Masbate, Philippines Rollie Calimutan throw a stone at PHILIPCANTRE, hitting him at the back left portion of
his body, resulting in laceration of spleen due toimpact which caused his death a day after.

 February 4, 1996 around 10 am: Cantre and witness Sañano, together with two other companions, had a drinking
spree at a videoke bar but as they were headed home, they crossed paths with Calimutan and Michael Bulalacao.
 Cantre, 26 years old and 5 ft. 9 inches, had a grudge against Bulalacao, a 15 year-old boy of 5ft. for suspecting
that he threw stones at the his house on a previous night so he punched him
 Seeking to protect Bulalacao and to stop Cantre, Calimutan picked a stone, as big as a man’s fist and hitting Cantre
at the left side of his back not noticing that Bulalacao was already able to ran away.
o Cantre stopped for a moment and held his back and Calimutan desisted from any other act of violence
 Witness Sañano then brought Cantre home where he complained of backache and also of stomach ache and was
unable to eat
 By night time, he felt cold then warm then he was sweating profusely and his entire body felt numb
o Having no vehicle, they could not bring him to a doctor so his mother just continue to wipe him with a piece
of cloth and brought him some food when he asked.
o After eating a little, he vomited.
o Shortly after complaining again of his backache and stomach ache, he died.
 The Post-Mortem Examination Report and Certification of Death, issued and signed by Dr. Ulanday, stated that the
cause of death of victim Cantre was cardio-respiratory arrest due to suspected food poisoning
 With the help of the Lingkod Bayan-Circulo de Abogadas of the ABS-CBN Foundation, an autopsy was done by Dr.
Ronaldo B. Mendez which showed that there was internal hemorrhage and massive accumulation of blood in his
abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen caused by a blunt object like a stone.
 RTC issued a warrant of arrest and during arraignment Calimutan pleaded not guilty to the crime of homicide
 RTC: Essentially adopting the prosecution’s account of the incident, held that Calimutan was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of homicide with a penalty of imprisonment from 8 years of Prision Mayor as minimum, to 12
years and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of Philip Cantre the sum of P50,000
as compensatory damages and the sum of P50,000 as moral damages
o NOT defense of stranger , because after the boxing Bulalacao, he was able to run thereby the unlawful
aggression by Cantre ceased
o The act of throwing a stone from behind which hit the victim at his back on the left side was a treacherous
o criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of this unlawful act even if the ultimate result
had not been intended
 CA: Affirmed RTC
 Calimutan filed a petition for review on certiorari contending that the dissimilar findings on the cause of death
constituted reasonable doubt

ISSUES:
Whether or not Rollie Calimutan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code.

HELD:
Yes, Rollie Calimutan is guilty of the crime of homicide, Since it is irrefragable that the stone thrownby petitioner Calimutan
at the victim Cantre was the proximate cause of the latter¶s death, despitebeing done with reckless imprudence rather than
with malicious intent, petitioner Calimutan remainscivilly liable for such death.

Lesson: Proof beyond reasonable doubt, Defense of Stranger, Proximate Cause, intentional felonies and culpable felonies
Laws Applicable: Art. 3, Art. 4, Par. 1

HELD:
NO. MODIFIED Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period of 4 months of
arresto mayor to a maximum period of two years and one day of prision correccional. Petitioner Calimutan is further
ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim Cantre the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the latter’s death and
P50,000.00 as moral damages

· Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind (NOT absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error)
 Dr. Mendez’s testimony as an expert witness is evidence, and although it does not necessarily bind the courts, it is
accorded great weight and probative value
· § may sufficiently establish the causal relationship between the stone thrown by the Calimutan and the lacerated
spleen of the Cantre which resulted in the latter’s death
· Proximate cause - 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
 Prosecution was able to establish that the proximate cause of the death of the Cantre was the stone thrown at him
by petitioner Calimutan.
· Comparing the limited autopsy conducted by Dr. Ulanday and her unconfirmed suspicion of food poisoning of
the victim Cantre, as opposed to the exhaustive autopsy performed by Dr. Mendez and his definitive finding of a
ruptured spleen as the cause of death, then the latter, without doubt, deserves to be given credence by the courts
· Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies felonies according to the means by which they are committed, in
particular:
  (1) intentional felonies - existence of malicious intent
· § act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice)
 (2) culpable felonies - absence of malicious intent
· § act or omission of the offender is NOT malicious
· § the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
· Absence of intent, Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
 Reckless imprudence consists in 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 or failing to perform
such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and
other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

SULPICIO INTOD v. CA, GR No. 103119, 1992-10-21

Facts:
In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador
Mandaya's house... and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan.
Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. 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.
At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day,... Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms,
arrived at Palangpangan's house At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location... of Palangpangan's
bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out; however, that
Palangpangan was in another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the
room when the accused fired the... shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.
Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible... crime

Issues:
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.

Ruling:
The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the offender his formidability,[7] and... now
penalizes an act which were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate,
would constitute a felony against person or against property.[8] The rationale of Article 4(2) is to... punish such criminal
tendencies.
Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against persons or property because: (1)
the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a)
inadequate or (b)... ineffectual.
To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of...
accomplishment.[11] There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended
act[12] in order to qualify the act as an impossible... crime.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.[13] Thus:
Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in
violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act; (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act;
and (4) the... consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.
The impossibility of killing a person already dead[15] falls in this category.
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime.[16] One example is the man who puts his hand in the coat... pocket of
another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.
The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in
reality, the victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.
In the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, in Article 4(2), expressly provided for impossible crimes and made them
punishable.
WE hereby hold Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime
Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by Petitioner, this Court sentences him to suffer the
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, together with the accessory penalties... provided by the law, and to pay the costs.
Principles:
The rationale of Article 4(2) is to... punish such criminal tendencies

INTOD vs CA
G.R. No. 103119
October 21, 1992

FACTS:

At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived
at Palangpangan's house. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of Palangpangan's bedroom.
Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in
another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused
fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
RTC: Convicted Intod of ATTEMPTED MURDER CA: Affirmed in toto

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime committed is impossible crime (YES)

HELD:
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus, legal
impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:

1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
2) there is intention to perform the physical act;
3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category.

On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his
control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. One example is the man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of
another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.

The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in
reality, the victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.
In Philippine jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not
merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself.

G.R. No. L-74324 November 17, 1988

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA, & BENJAMIN SAMSON y MAGDALENA,accused-appellants.

MEDIALDEA, J.:
Facts of the Case:
The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder of Bayani
Miranda and sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prision mayor as minimum to 20years (prision
temporal) as maximum and forSamson to be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.Miranda and the accused Pugay are
friends.Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to sleeptogether.On the evening of May 19,
1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite.Sometimeafter midnight accused Pugay and
Samson with several companions arrived drunk and started making fun of Miranda.Pugay after making fun of
Miranda, took a can of gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, despiteGabion telling Pugay not to
do the deed.Still, Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.

Issue:
Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? Is Pugay criminally liable?

Ruling:
Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that thecrime of murder is also present?
There is NO conspiracy in this case.Conspiracy is determined when two or more persons agree to commit
a felonyand decide to commit it.Conspirac y must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the
felony itself,morespecifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt.It is not essential that there must be proof
as to the existence of aprevious agreement to commit a crime.However, it is sufficient if at the time of the
commission of the crime, theaccused has the same purpose and were united and executed.In the case at bar, there
was no animosity between Miranda and the accused; to add that at the commission of thecrime, the accused’s intent was
purely coincidental since he is under the influence of liquor at thecommission of the crime.Since there was NO conspiracy
to speak of, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising fromdifferent acts directed against Miranda
is individual and not collective and each of them is liable only on the actthat was committed by him.

URBANO V. IAC
Facts:
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on his way to his ricefield. He found the place where he stored palay
flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to see what happened, and there
he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efre cutting grass. Javier admitted that he was the one who opened the canal. A quarrel
ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo, and again on the leg with the back of the bolo. On October
27, 1980, Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano paid P700 for the medical expenses of Javier. On
November 14, 1980, Urbano was rushed to the hospital where he had lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found the
condition to be caused by tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound in his palm. He died the following day. Urbano
was charged with homicide and was found guilty both by the trial court and on appeal by the Court of Appeals. Urbano filed
a motion for new trial based on the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who stated that he saw the deceased catching fish in
the shallow irrigation canals on November 5. The motion was denied; hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause of the latter’s death
Held:
A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is... "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."And more
comprehensively, "the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting
other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with
its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of
the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily
prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom."
If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically
probable that Javier should have been infected with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared
on the 22nd day after the hacking incident or more than 14 days after the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time
should have been more than six days. Javier, however, died on the second day from the onset time. The more credible
conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was
not yet present. Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking incident. Considering
the circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to
22 days before he died.
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. And since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim's death
must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The 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. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
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.
"A prior and remote cause cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the
condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or
remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury
would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the
independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. 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."

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO CAGOCO Y RAMONES, GR No. 38511, 1933-10-06

Facts:
on the night of July 24, 1932 Yu Lon and Yu Yee, father and son, stopped to talk on the sidewalk
While they were talking, a man passed back and forth behind Yu Lon once or twice, and when Yu Yee was about to take
leave of his father, the man that had been passing back and forth behind Yu Lon approached him from behind and suddenly
and... without warning struck him with his fist on the back part of the head. Yu Lon tottered and fell backwards. His head
struck the asphalt pavement; the lower part of his body fell on the sidewalk. His assailant immediately ran away.
The wounded man was taken to the Philippine General Hospital, where he died... about midnight.

Issues:
it is contended that the appellant if guilty at all, should be punished in accordance with article 266 of the Revised Penal
Code, or for slight physical injuries instead of murder.

Ruling:
Paragraph No. 1 of article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended; but in order that a
person may be criminally... liable for a felony different from that which he proposed to commit, it is indispensable that the
two following requisites be present, to wit: (a) That a felony was committed; and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved
person be the direct consequence of the... crime committed by the offender.
where death results as the direct consequence of the use of... illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened
condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility; that
one is not relieved, under the law in these Islands, from criminal liability for the... natural consequences of one's illegal acts,
merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences; but that in such cases, the lack of intention, while it
does not exempt from criminal liability, is taken into consideration as an extenuating circumstance
There can be no reasonable doubt as to the cause of the death of Yu Lon. There is nothing to indicate that it was due to
some extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of defendants felonious... act, and the fact that the defendant
did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from the consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely a
mitigating circumstance... under the circumstances of this case the defendant is liable for the killing of Yu Lon, because his
death was the direct consequence of defendant's felonious act of striking him on the head. If the defendant had not
committed the assault in a treacherous... manner, he would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide, although he did not
intend to kill the deceased; and since the defendant did commit the crime with treachery, he is guilty of murder, because of
the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Principles:
where death results as the direct consequence of the use of... illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened
condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility; that
one is not relieved, under the law in these Islands, from criminal liability for the... natural consequences of one's illegal acts,
merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences
LIANG VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR no. 125865 January 28, 2000
Petitioner: Jeffrey Liang
Respondent: People of the Philippines

FACTS:
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering
defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two
counts of oral defamation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioner’s bail,
the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received an “office of
protocol” from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under section 45 of the Agreement
between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country. Based on the said
protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the
criminal cases. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. When its motion was denied,
the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings
and ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the motion for reconsideration was denied,
the petitioner elevated the case to the SC via a petition for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the
Agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal case.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the petitioner’s case is covered with immunity from legal process with regard to Section 45 of the
Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Gov’t.
(2) Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was imperative.

HELD:
(1) NO. The petitioner’s case is not covered by the immunity. Courts cannot blindly adhere to the communication from the
DFA that the petitioner is covered by any immunity. It has no binding effect in courts. The court needs to protect the right to
due process not only of the accused but also of the prosecution. Secondly, the immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement
is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts must be done in “official capacity”. Hence, slandering a person
could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such
as defamation, in the name of official duty.
(2) NO. Preliminary Investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as this case. Being purely
a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only when specifically granted by law. The rule on criminal
procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.

Hence, SC denied the petition.