ARTICLE 4- PROXIMATE CAUSE VS.

REMOTE CAUSE

People vs. Almonte

FACTS:

Week before the crime, the accused lived maritally with Felix Te Sue who was a
married man. Miguela Dawal, with whom he had also lived maritally, threatened to bring
suit against him unless he rejoined her. Felix and the accused voluntarily separated.
From then on Felix lived with Miguela Dawal.

On October 1, 1930, the accused visited her former paramour and found him with
Miguela. When Felix saw her, he told her to go away because his new paramour might
get jealous. The accused upon insisting to stay was pushed by Felix and Miguela where
she felt unjustly treated, the accused then took a small penknife and stabbed Felix in
the abdomen.

Horrified she fled and went home, leaving the blade sticking on the abdomen of
the victim. Felix was taken to the provincial hospital where thedoctor performed a slight
operation, according to him it was not serious; but on the sixth day the patient
experienced complications that produced his death. It is argued that the judgment
appealed from is erroneous in finding that the deceaced’s movements were the cause
of the second hemorrhage that produced his death and not the blow inflicted on him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the victim’s movement which resulted to complications was the
proximate cause of his death?

HELD:

No, we hold that the real cause of the death of Felix was not the bodily
movements, but the congestion of the internal veins produced beforehand by the force
of the blow. A man is responsible for the consequences of his act, in this case the
physical condition and temperament of the offended party nowise lessen the evil, the
seriousness whereof is to be judged not by the violence of the means employed but by
the result actually produced
 ARTICLE 4- PROXIMATE CAUSE VS. REMOTE CAUSE

People vs. Toling et. al.

FACTS:

Antonio Toling and Jose Toling were natives of Barrio Nenita Samar. They are
illiterate farmers tilling their own lands. Antonio's daughter, was working in Manila and
Jose's children had stayed in Manila also. Antonio decided to go to Manila after
receiving a letter from her daughter telling him that she would give him money.

To have money for his expenses, Antonio sold the meat to Jose's wife. Jose
decided to go with Antonio in order to see his children. After buying their tickets home,
they boarded the night Bicol express train. The train stopped at Cabuyao, Laguna and
not long after it resumed regular speed the twins ran amuck and started stabbing the
people in the coach. They were finally stopped when Constabulary soldiers aboard the
train heard about the incident. The dead amounted to twelve. Eight suffered from stab
wounds while others died after they jumped off the train, apparently trying to escape the
violence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Antonio and Jose toling is also responsible for the death of those
who jumped off the train?

HELD:

Yes, the conjecture is that they jumped from the moving train to avoid being
killed but in so doing they met their untimely and horrible deaths. 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". The presumption is that "a person intends the ordinary consequences of
his voluntary act." The rule is that "if a man creates in another man's mind an immediate
sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injures
himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries
which result."
 ARTICLE 4- PROXIMATE CAUSE VS. REMOTE CAUSE

People vs. Ortega

Facts:

In 1992, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia and a certain John Doe were
charged with murder for the killing Andre Man Masangkay. As narrated by a witness,
the victim answered the call of nature and went to the back portion of the house where
they were having a drinking spree. Accused Ortega followed him and later they heard
the victim shouting for help and when they ran towards the scene he saw the accused
on top of the victim and stabbing the latter with along bladed weapon. Thereafter,
Ortega and Garcia brought the victim to a well and dropped him and placed stones into
the well. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The accused
appealed averring that the trial court erred in holding them criminally liable because at
the time the victim was dropped into the well, he was still alive.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused may be held criminally liable for the death of the
victim which is not attributable to the stab wounds but due to drowning.

Ruling:

Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code states 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. The essential requisites for the application of this
provision are that (a) the intended act is felonious; (b) the resulting act is likewise a
felony; and (c) the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actor’s
wrongful acts. In assisting Appellant Ortega, Jr carry the body of Masangkay to the well,
Appellant Garcia was committing a felony. The offense was that of concealing the body
of the crime to prevent its discovery, i.e. that of being an accessory in the crime of
homicide.[30] Although Appellant Garcia may have been unaware that the victim was
still alive when he assisted Ortega in throwing the body into the well, he is still liable for
the direct and natural consequence of his felonious act, even if the resulting offense is
worse than that intended. Wherefore, Appellant Benjamin Ortega is found guilty of
homicide.

ARTICLE 4- PROXIMATE CAUSE VS. REMOTE CAUSE

Urbano vs. 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. 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 by that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded t 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 as subsequent act or
condition is the proximate cause.
 ARTICLE 4- PROXIMATE CAUSE VS. REMOTE CAUSE

People vs. Abarca

FACTS:

One day in 1984, Francisco Abarca, through a peephole, caught his wife having sexual
intercourse with one Khingsley Paul Koh inside the Abarca residence. The two also caught Abarca
looking at them and so Koh grabbed his pistol and thereafter Abarca fled. One hour later, Abarca, armed
with an armalite, went to the gambling place where Koh usually stays and then and there shot Koh
multiple times. Koh died instantaneously. However, two more persons were shot in the adjacent room.
These two other persons survived due to timely medical intervention.

Eventually after trial, Abarca was convicted of the complex crime of murder with frustrated double
murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the proximate cause of death of the victim was due to the accused sudden fit of
passionate outburst.

HELD:

Yes. Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-
appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually
shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-
appellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . .
. immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit
the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing
should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by
external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.

In the instant case, even though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca caught his wife with
Koh and the time he killed Koh, the killing was still the direct by-product of Abarca’s rage. Therefore,
Abarca is not liable for the death of Koh.