Scribd
Upload
26 views2 pages

Urbano v. IAC, 157 SCRA 1, January 7, 1988

Case Digest (Criminal Law)

Uploaded by

Denzelle Feliciano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views2 pages

Urbano v. IAC, 157 SCRA 1, January 7, 1988

Case Digest (Criminal Law)

Uploaded by

Denzelle Feliciano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Urbano v.

IAC, 157 SCRA 1, January 7, 1988

FACTS: Petitioner Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at Brgy. Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan at 8:00
am of October 23, 1980. The said ricefield is about 100 meters from the tobacco seedbed of Marcelo Javier.

A quarrel between Filomeno Urbano and Marcelo Javier started when Urbano found that the place where
he stored his palay was flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which had overflowed.
Urbano saw Marcelo with Emilio cutting grass near the canal, Urbano asked them who was responsible
for the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano pulled out his bolo
and hacked Javier hitting him on the right palm of his hand, which was used by parrying the bolo. Unarmed
Javier ran away from Urbano but was overtaken by Urbano who hacked him again hitting Javier on the left
leg with back portion of the bolo which caused a swelling on the leg. When Urbano tried to hack and inflict
further injury, his daughter embraced and prevented him from hitting Javier.

Thereafter, Antonio Erfe, Emilio Erfe, and Felipe Erfe brought Javier to his house about 50 meters away
from where the incident happened. Emilio then went to the house of Barangay Captain Menardo Soliven
but not finding him there, Emilio looked for barrio councilman Felipe Solis instead. Upon the advice of
Solis, the 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. The group went to Dr. Guillermo Padilla,
rural health physician of San Fabian, who did not attend to Javier but instead suggested that they go to Dr.
Mario Meneses because Padilla had no available medicine. After Javier was treated by Dr. Meneses, he
and his companions returned to Dr. Guillermo Padilla who conducted a medico-legal examination. Urbano
and Javier agreed to settle their differences.

On November 14, 1980 at 1:30 am, Javier was rushed to Hospital because of convulsions and lockjaw
which was caused by tetanus toxin as examined by his doctor. Unfortunately, on November 15, 1980 at
4:18 pm, Javier died in the hospital.

April 10, 1981, Filomeno was charged with the crime of homicide. Upon arraignment, Urbano pleaded
“not guilty.” After trial, Urbano was found guilty. He was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term
of from TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor, as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) years, FOUR (4) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum, together with the accessories of the law, to
indemnify the heirs of the victim, Marcelo Javier, in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. He was ordered confined at the New Bilibid
Prison, in Muntinlupa, Rizal upon finality of the decision, in view of the nature of his penalty.

Here, the respondent, Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the conviction of Urbano on appeal but
raised the award of indemnity to the heirs of deceased to 30,000 against Urbano. Urbano filed a motion
for reconsideration and/or new trial which was based on an affidavit of Brgy Captain Soliven which states
that he saw Marcelo Javier catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals and that upon his knowledge,
Marcelo Javier died because of tetanus.

However, the motion was denied. The lower courts ruled that Javier’s death was the natural and logical
consequences of Urbano’s unlawful act. Hence, Urbano was responsible for Javier’s death.

ISSUE: Whether there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier was wounded until his death
which would exculpate Urbano from any liability for Javier’s death.
RULING: Yes. The court look into the nature of tetanus which states that “The incubation period of tetanus,
i.e., the time between injury and the appearance of unmistakable symptoms, ranges from 2 to 56 days.
However, over 80 percent of patients become symptomatic within 14 days. A short incubation period
indicates severe disease, and when symptoms occur within 2 or 3 days of injury the mortality rate
approaches 100 percent.” Therefore, medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's body
depends on the incubation period of the disease.

In this case, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm when he parried the boli which Urbano
used in hacking him. This incident took place on October 23, 1980. After 22 days, or on November 14,
1980, he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle spasms. The following day, November
15, 1980, 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. (People v. Cardenas, supra) 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.

Doubts are present. 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. It does not necessarily follow that the petitioner
is also free of civil liability. The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally liable, may still
be civilly liable.

“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. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.”

You might also like