G.R. No. 152133 February 9, 2006
ROLLIE CALIMUTAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
In this Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner Rollie Calimutan prays
for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
23306, dated 29 August 2001,affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 46, of Masbate, Masbate, in Criminal Case No. 8184, dated 19
November 1998,2 finding petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Information3
filed with the RTC charged petitioner Calimutan with the crime of homicide,
allegedly committed as follows –
That on or about
February 4, 1996, in the morning thereof, at sitio Capsay, Barangay Panique,
Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
throw a stone at PHILIP CANTRE, hitting him at the back left portion of his
body, resulting in laceration of spleen due to impact which caused his death a
day after.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Masbate, Masbate,
September 11, 1996.
Accordingly, the RTC issued, on 02
December 1996, a warrant
for the arrest of petitioner Calimutan. On 09 January 1997, however, he
was provisionally released
after posting sufficient bailbond.6 During the arraignment on 21 May 1997, petitioner
Calimutan pleaded not
guilty to the crime of homicide charged against him.7
In the course of the
trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: (1) Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, a Senior Medico-Legal Officer
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); (2) Belen B. Cantre, mother of
the victim, Philip Cantre; and (3) Rene L. Sañano, companion of the victim
Cantre when the alleged crime took place. Their testimonies are
collectively summarized below.
On 04 February 1996, at around
10:00 a.m., the victim Cantre and witness Sañano, together with two other
companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar in Crossing Capsay,
Panique, Aroroy, Masbate. From the videoke bar, the victim Cantre and witness
Sañano proceeded to go
home to their respective houses, but along the way, they crossed paths with petitioner
Calimutan and a certain Michael Bulalacao. Victim Cantre was harboring a grudge
against Bulalacao, suspecting the latter as the culprit responsible for
throwing stones at the Cantre’s house on a previous night. Thus, upon seeing
Bulalacao, victim Cantre suddenly punched him. While Bulalacao ran away,
petitioner Calimutan dashed towards the backs of victim Cantre and witness
Sañano. Petitioner
Calimutan then picked up a stone, as big as a man’s fist, which he threw at
victim Cantre, hitting him at the left side of his back. When hit by the stone,
victim Cantre stopped for a moment and held his back. Witness Sañano put
himself between the victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan, and attempted to
pacify the two, even convincing petitioner Calimutan to put down another stone
he was already holding. He also urged victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan to
just go home. Witness Sañano accompanied victim Cantre to the latter’s house,
and on the way, victim Cantre complained of the pain in the left side of his
back hit by the stone. They arrived at the Cantre’s house at around 12:00 noon,
and witness Sañano left victim Cantre to the care of the latter’s mother, Belen.8
Victim Cantre
immediately told his mother, Belen, of the stoning incident involving
petitioner Calimutan. He
again complained of backache and also of stomachache, and was unable to eat. By
nighttime, victim Cantre was alternately feeling cold and then warm. He was sweating
profusely and his entire body felt numb. His family would have wanted to bring
him to a doctor but they had no vehicle. At around 3:00 a.m. of the following
day, 05 February 1996, Belen was wiping his son with a piece of cloth, when
victim Cantre asked for some food. He was able to eat a little, but he also
later vomited whatever he ate. For the last time, he complained of backache and
stomachache, and shortly thereafter, he died.9
Right after his
death, victim Cantre was examined by Dr. Conchita S. Ulanday, the Municipal
Health Officer of Aroroy, Masbate. The Post-Mortem Examination Report10 and Certification of Death,11
issued and signed by Dr. Ulanday, stated that the cause of death of victim
Cantre was cardio-respiratory arrest due to suspected food poisoning.
The body of victim Cantre was subsequently embalmed and buried on 13 February
1996.
Unsatisfied with the
findings of Dr. Ulanday, the Cantre family, with the help of the Lingkod Bayan-Circulo de Abogadas of
the ABS-CBN Foundation, requested for an exhumation and autopsy of the
body of the victim Cantre by the NBI. The exhumation and autopsy of the body of
the victim Cantre was conducted by Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez on 15 April 1996,12 after which, he
reported the following findings –
Body; fairly
well-preserved with sign of partial autopsy; clad in white Barong Tagalog and
blue pants placed inside a wooden golden-brown coffin and buried in a concrete
niche.
Contused-abrasion,
2.3 x 1.0 cms., posterior chest wall, left side.
Hematoma, 16.0 x 8.0
cms., abdomen, along mid-line.
Hemoperitoneum,
massive, clotte [sic].
Laceration, spleen.
Other visceral
organ, pale and embalmed.
Stomach contains
small amount of whitish fluid and other partially digested food particles.
x x x x
CAUSE OF DEATH:
TRAUMATIC INJURY OF THE ABDOMEN.
In his testimony
before the RTC, Dr. Mendez
affirmed the contents of his exhumation and autopsy report. He explained that
the victim Cantre suffered from an internal hemorrhage and there was massive accumulation of blood in his
abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen. The laceration of the spleen can
be caused by any blunt instrument, such as a stone. Hence, Dr. Mendez
confirmed the possibility that the victim Cantre was stoned to death by
petitioner Calimutan.13
To counter the evidence
of the prosecution, the defense presented the sole testimony of the accused,
herein petitioner, Calimutan.
According to
petitioner Calimutan, at about 1:00 p.m. on 04 February 1996, he was walking
with his house helper, Michael Bulalacao, on their way to Crossing Capsay,
Panique, Aroroy, Masbate, when they met with the victim Cantre and witness
Sañano. The victim Cantre took hold of Bulalacao and punched him several times.
Petitioner Calimutan attempted to pacify the victim Cantre but the latter refused
to calm down, pulling out from his waist an eight-inch Batangas knife and
uttering that he was looking for trouble, either "to kill or be
killed." At this point, petitioner Calimutan was about ten meters away
from the victim Cantre and was too frightened to move any closer for fear that
the enraged man would turn on him; he still had a family to take care of. When
he saw that the victim Cantre was about to stab Bulalacao, petitioner Calimutan
picked up a stone, which he described as approximately one-inch in diameter,
and threw it at the victim Cantre. He was able to hit the victim Cantre on his
right buttock. Petitioner Calimutan and Bulalacao then started to run away, and
victim Cantre chased after them, but witness Sañano was able to pacify the victim
Cantre. Petitioner Calimutan allegedly reported the incident to a kagawad of
Barangay Panique and to the police authorities and sought their help in
settling the dispute between Bulalacao and the victim Cantre. Bulalacao, meanwhile,
refused to seek medical help despite the advice of petitioner Calimutan and,
instead, chose to go back to his hometown.14
Petitioner Calimutan
was totally unaware of what had happened to the victim Cantre after the stoning
incident on 04 February 1996. Some of his friends told him that they still saw
the victim Cantre drinking at a videoke bar on the night of 04 February 1996.
As far as he knew, the victim Cantre died the following day, on 05 February
1996, because of food poisoning. Petitioner Calimutan maintained that he had no
personal grudge against the victim Cantre previous to the stoning incident.15
On 19 November 1998,
the RTC rendered
its Decision,16 essentially
adopting the prosecution’s account of the incident on 04 February 1996,
and pronouncing that –
It cannot be legally contended that the throwing of
the stone by the accused was in defense of his companion, a stranger, because
after the boxing Michael was able to run. While it appears
that the victim was the unlawful aggressor at the beginning, but the aggression
already ceased after Michael was able to run and there was no more need for
throwing a stone. The throwing of the stone to the victim which was a
retaliatory act can be considered unlawful, hence the accused can be held
criminally liable under paragraph 1 of Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
The act of throwing a stone from behind which hit
the victim at his back on the left side was a treacherous one and the accused
committed a felony causing physical injuries to the victim. The physical injury of hematoma as a result
of the impact of the stone resulted in the laceration of the spleen causing the
death of the victim. The
accused is criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of
this unlawful act even if the ultimate result had not been intended.
(Art. 4, Par. 1, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Narciso, CA-G.R. No. 03532-CR,
Jan. 13, 1964)
One is not relieved
from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s illegal acts
merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences (U.S. vs.
Brobst, 14 Phil. 310).
The crime committed
is Homicide as defined and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds and so holds that accused ROLLIE CALIMUTAN is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide defined
and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code with no mitigating or
aggravating circumstance and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby
imposes the penalty of
imprisonment from EIGHT (8) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum, to TWELVE (12)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the
heirs of Philip Cantre the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as
compensatory damages and the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral
damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Petitioner Calimutan
appealed the Decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in its
Decision, dated 29 August 2001,17 sustained the conviction of homicide rendered by the RTC against
petitioner Calimutan, ratiocinating thus –
The prosecution has
sufficiently established that the serious internal injury sustained by the
victim was caused by the stone thrown at the victim by the accused which, the
accused-appellant does not deny. It was likewise shown that the internal injury
sustained by the victim was the result of the impact of the stone that hit the
victim. It resulted to a traumatic injury of the abdomen causing the laceration
of the victim’s spleen.
This is clearly
shown by the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Ronaldo Mendez, a Senior Medico
Legal Officer of the NBI after the exhumation of the victim’s cadaver…
The Court cannot
give credence to the post mortem report prepared by Municipal Health Officer
Dr. Conchita Ulanday stating that the cause of the victim’s death was food
poisoning. Dr. Ulanday was not even presented to testify in court hence she was
not even able to identify and/or affirm the contents of her report. She was not
made available for cross-examination on the accuracy and correctness of her
findings.
Dr. Conchita
Ulanday’s post mortem report cannot prevail over the autopsy report (Exh.
"C") of the Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI who testified and was
cross-examined by the defense.
Besides, if
accused-appellant was convinced that the victim indeed died of food poisoning,
as reported by Dr. Conchita Ulanday, why did they not present her as their
witness to belie the report of the Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI.
The trial court’s
evaluation of the testimony of Dr. Mendez is accorded the highest respect
because it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of said
witness.
WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Branch
46, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide is hereby AFFIRMED.
The Court of
Appeals, in its Resolution, dated 15 January 2002,18 denied the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioner Calimutan for lack of merit since the
issues raised therein had already been passed and ruled upon in its Decision,
dated 29 August 2001.
Comes now petitioner
Calimutan, by way of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, seeking (1) the reversal of
the Decisions of the RTC, dated 19 November 1998, and of the Court of Appeals,
dated 29 August 2001, convicting him of the crime of homicide; and, (2)
consequently, his acquittal of the said crime based on reasonable doubt.
Petitioner Calimutan contended that the
existence of the two autopsy reports, with dissimilar findings on the cause of
death of the victim Cantre, constituted reasonable doubt as to the
liability of petitioner Calimutan for the said death, arguing that –
x x x [I]t was Dra.
Conchita Ulanday, Municipal Health Officer of Aroroy, Masbate was the first
physician of the government who conducted an examination on the cadaver of the
victim Philip Cantre whose findings was that the cause of his death was due to
food poisoning while the second government physician NBI Medico Legal Officer
Dr. Ronaldo Mendez whose findings was that the cause of the death was due to a
traumatic injury of the abdomen caused by a lacerated spleen and with these
findings of two (2) government physicians whose findings are at variance with
each other materially, it is humbly contended that the same issue raised a
reasonable doubt on the culpability of the petitioner.
As there are
improbabilities and uncertainties of the evidence for the prosecution in the
case at bar, it suffices to reaise [sic] reasonable doubt as to the
petitioner’s guilt and therefore, he is entitled to acquittal (People vs.
Delmendo, G.R. No. 32146, November 23, 1981).19
In this
jurisdiction, an accused in a criminal case may only be convicted if his or her
guilt is established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a
moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of
all possibility of error.20
In the Petition at
bar, this Court finds that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold
petitioner Calimutan liable for the death of the victim Cantre.
Undoubtedly, the
exhumation and autopsy report and the personal testimony before the RTC of
prosecution witness, NBI Senior Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Mendez, are vital
pieces of evidence against petitioner Calimutan. Dr. Mendez determined that the
victim Cantre died of internal hemorrhage or bleeding due to the laceration of
his spleen. In his testimony, Dr. Mendez clearly and consistently explained
that the spleen could be lacerated or ruptured when the abdominal area was hit
with a blunt object, such as the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at the
victim Cantre.
It bears to
emphasize that Dr. Mendez was presented by the prosecution as an expert
witness, whose "competency and academic qualification and background"
was admitted by the defense itself.21 As a Senior Medico-Legal Officer of the
NBI, Dr. Mendez is presumed to possess sufficient knowledge of pathology,
surgery, gynecology, toxicology, and such other branches of medicine germane to
the issues involved in a case.22
Dr. Mendez’s testimony as an expert witness is
evidence,23 and although it does not necessarily bind the courts, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals had
properly accorded it great
weight and probative value. Having testified as to matters undeniably
within his area of expertise, and having performed a thorough autopsy on the
body of the victim Cantre, his findings as to the cause of death of the victim
Cantre are more than just the mere speculations of an ordinary person. They may sufficiently establish the
causal relationship between the stone thrown by the petitioner Calimutan and
the lacerated spleen of the victim Cantre which, subsequently, resulted in the
latter’s death. With no apparent mistake or irregularity, whether in the
manner by which Dr. Mendez performed the autopsy on the body of the victim
Cantre or in his findings, then his report and testimony must be seriously
considered by this Court.
Moreover, reference
to other resource materials on abdominal injuries would also support the
conclusion of Dr. Mendez that the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan caused
the death of the victim Cantre.
One source explains
the nature of abdominal injuries24 in the following manner –
The skin may remain
unmarked inspite of extensive internal injuries with bleeding and disruption of
the internal organs. The areas most vulnerable are the point of attachment of
internal organs, especially at the source of its blood supply and at the point
where blood vessels change direction.
The area in the
middle superior half of the abdomen, forming a triangle bounded by the ribs on
the two sides and a line drawn horizontally through the umbilicus forming its
base is vulnerable to trauma applied from any direction. In this triangle are
found several blood vessels changing direction, particularly the celiac trunk,
its branches (the hepatic, splenic and gastric arteries) as well as the
accompanying veins. The loop of the duodenum, the ligament of Treitz and the
pancreas are in the retroperitoneal space, and the stomach and transverse colon
are in the triangle, located in the peritoneal cavity. Compression or blow on
the area may cause detachment, laceration, stretch-stress, contusion of the
organs (Legal Medicine 1980, Cyril H. Wecht et., p. 41).
As to injuries to
the spleen, in particular,25 the same source expounds that –
The spleen usually
suffers traumatic rupture resulting from the impact of a fall or blow from the
crushing and grinding effects of wheels of motor vehicles. Although the organ
is protected at its upper portion by the ribs and also by the air-containing
visceral organs, yet on account of its superficiality and fragility, it is
usually affected by trauma. x x x.
Certainly, there are
some terms in the above-quoted paragraphs difficult to comprehend for people
without medical backgrounds. Nevertheless, there are some points that can be
plainly derived therefrom: (1) Contrary to common perception, the abdominal
area is more than just the waist area. The entire abdominal area is divided
into different triangles, and the spleen is located in the upper triangle,
bounded by the rib cage; (2) The spleen and all internal organs in the same
triangle are vulnerable to trauma from all directions. Therefore, the stone
need not hit the victim Cantre from the front. Even impact from a stone hitting
the back of the victim Cantre, in the area of the afore-mentioned triangle,
could rupture the spleen; and (3) Although the spleen had already been ruptured
or lacerated, there may not always be a perceptible external injury to the
victim. Injury to the spleen cannot, at all times, be attributed to an obvious,
external injury such as a cut or bruise. The laceration of the victim Cantre’s
spleen can be caused by a stone thrown hard enough, which qualifies as a
nonpenetrating trauma26 –
Nonpenetrating
Trauma. The spleen, alone or in combination with other viscera, is the most
frequently injured organ following blunt trauma to the abdomen or the lower
thoracic cage. Automobile accidents provide the predominating cause, while
falls, sledding and bicycle injuries, and blows incurred during contact sports
are frequently implicated in children. x x x
The sheer impact of
the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at the back of the victim Cantre could
rupture or lacerate the spleen – an organ described as vulnerable, superficial,
and fragile – even without causing any other external physical injury.
Accordingly, the findings of Dr. Mendez that the victim Cantre died of internal
hemorrhage from his lacerated spleen, and the cause of the laceration of the
spleen was the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at the back of the victim
Cantre, does not necessarily contradict his testimony before the RTC that none
of the external injuries of the victim Cantre were fatal.
Based on the
foregoing discussion, the prosecution
was able to establish that the proximate cause of the death of the victim
Cantre was the stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan. Proximate cause has
been defined 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."27
The two other
witnesses presented by the prosecution, namely Sañano and Belen Cantre, had
adequately recounted the events that transpired on 04 February 1996 to 05
February 1996. Between the two of them, the said witnesses accounted for the
whereabouts, actions, and physical condition of the victim Cantre during the
said period. Before the encounter with petitioner Calimutan and Bulalacao, the
victim Cantre seemed to be physically fine. However, after being hit at the
back by the stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan, the victim Cantre had
continuously complained of backache. Subsequently, his physical condition
rapidly deteriorated, until finally, he died. Other than being stoned by
petitioner Calimutan, there was no other instance when the victim Cantre may
have been hit by another blunt instrument which could have caused the
laceration of his spleen.
Hence, this Court is
morally persuaded that the victim Cantre died from a lacerated spleen, an
injury sustained after being hit by a stone thrown at him by petitioner
Calimutan. Not even the post-mortem report of Dr. Ulanday, the Municipal Health
Officer who first examined the body of the victim Cantre, can raise reasonable
doubt as to the cause of death of the victim Cantre. Invoking Dr. Ulanday’s
post-mortem report, the defense insisted on the possibility that the victim Cantre
died of food poisoning. The post-mortem report, though, cannot be given much
weight and probative value for the following reasons –
First, a closer
scrutiny of the words used by Dr. Ulanday in her post-mortem report, as well as
in the death certificate of the victim Cantre, reveals that although she
suspected food poisoning as the cause of death, she held back from making a
categorical statement that it was so. In the post-mortem report, 28 she found
that "x x x the provable (sic) cause of death was due to
cardio-respiratory arrest. Food poisoning must be confirm (sic) by laboratory
e(x)am." In the death certificate of the victim Cantre, 29 she wrote that
the immediate cause of death was "Cardio-Respiratory Arrest" and the
antecedent cause was "Food Poisoning Suspect." There was no showing
that further laboratory tests were indeed conducted to confirm Dr. Ulanday’s
suspicion that the victim Cantre suffered from food poisoning, and without such
confirmation, her suspicion as to the cause of death remains just that – a
suspicion.
Second, Dr. Ulanday
executed before the NBI a sworn statement30 in which she had explained her
findings in the post-mortem report, to wit –
05. Q: Did you
conduct an autopsy on his cadaver?
A: I did sir, but
not as exhaustive as that done by the NBI Medico-legal.
06. Q: Now, what do
you want to state regarding your certification on the death of PHILIP B.
CANTRE?
A: I stated in the
certification and even in the Death Certificate about "Food
Poisoning". What I stated in the Death Certificate was that CANTRE was a
SUSPECTED victim of food poisoning. I didn’t state that he was a case of food
poisoning. And in the Certification, I even recommended that an examination be
done to confirm that suspicion.
07. Q: What gave you
that suspicion of poisoning?
A: As there were no
external signs of fatal injuries except that of the contusion or abrasion,
measuring as that size of a 25 centavo coin, I based my suspicion from the
history of the victim and from the police investigation.
08. Q: You also
mentioned in your Certification that there was no internal hemorrhage in the
cadaver. Did you open the body of the cadaver?
A: As I have already
stated sir, I did not conduct an exhaustive autopsy. I made an incision on the
abdomen and I explored the internal organs of the cadaver with my hand in
search for any clotting inside. But I found none. I did not open the body of
the cadaver.
09. Q: You mentioned
about a contusion you have observed on the cadaver. Where was it located?
A: On the left
portion of his back, sir.
10. Q: Now, is it
possible that if somebody be hit by a hard object on that part of his body, his
SPLEEN could be injured?
A: Yes, sir. But
that would depend on how strong or forceful the impact was.
In contrast, Dr.
Mendez described in his testimony before the RTC31 how he conducted the autopsy
of the body of the victim Cantre, as follows –
Q What specific
procedure did you do in connection with the exhumation of the body of the
victim in this case?
A We opened the
head, chest and the abdomen.
Q That was part of
the autopsy you have conducted?
A Yes, sir.
Q Aside from opening
the head as well as the body of the victim Philip Cantre, what other matters
did you do in connection therewith?
A We examined the
internal organs.
Q What in particular
internal organs you have examined?
A The brain, the
heart, the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the pancreas plus the intestines.
x x x x
Q The cause of death
as you have listed here in your findings is listed as traumatic injury of the
abdomen, will you kindly tell us Doctor what is the significance of this
medical term traumatic injury of the abdomen?
A We, medico-legal
officers of the NBI don’t do what other doctors do as they make causes of death
as internal hemorrhage we particularly point to the injury of the body like
this particular case the injury was at the abdomen of the victim.
Q Will you tell as
Doctor what particular portion of the abdomen of the victim this traumatic
injury is located?
A Along the midline
but the damaged organ was at the left.
Q What particular
organ are you referring to?
A The spleen, sir.
The difference in
the extent of the examinations conducted by the two doctors of the body of the
victim Cantre provides an adequate explanation for their apparent inconsistent
findings as to the cause of death. 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 of the victim Cantre, then the latter,
without doubt, deserves to be given credence by the courts.
Third, that the
prosecution no longer presented Dr. Ulanday before the RTC despite being
included in its list of witnesses did not amount to a willful suppression of
evidence that would give rise to the presumption that her testimony would be
adverse to the prosecution if produced.32 As this Court already expounded in
the case ofPeople v. Jumamoy33 –
The prosecution's
failure to present the other witnesses listed in the information did not
constitute, contrary to the contention of the accused, suppression of evidence.
The prosecutor has the exclusive prerogative to determine the witnesses to be
presented for the prosecution. If the prosecution has several eyewitnesses, as
in the instant case, the prosecutor need not present all of them but only as
many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other
witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with for being merely corroborative in
nature. This Court has ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative
witnesses would not constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal
to the prosecution's case. Besides, there is no showing that the eyewitnesses
who were not presented in court as witnesses were not available to the accused.
We reiterate the rule that the adverse presumption from a suppression of
evidence is not applicable when (1) the suppression is not willful; (2) the
evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the
evidence is at the disposal of both parties; and (4) the suppression is an
exercise of a privilege. Moreover, if the accused believed that the failure to
present the other witnesses was because their testimonies would be unfavorable
to the prosecution, he should have compelled their appearance, by compulsory
process, to testify as his own witnesses or even as hostile witnesses.
It was a judgment
call for the prosecution to no longer present Dr. Ulanday before the RTC,
perhaps believing that it had already presented sufficient evidence to merit
the conviction of petitioner Calimutan even without her testimony. There was
nothing, however, preventing the defense from calling on, or even compelling,
with the appropriate court processes, Dr. Ulanday to testify in court as its
witness if it truly believed that her testimony would be adverse to the case
presented by the prosecution.
While this Court is
in accord with the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals and
affirms that there is ample evidence proving that the death of the victim
Cantre was caused by his lacerated spleen, an injury which resulted from being
hit by the stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan, this Court,
nonetheless, is at variance with the RTC and the Court of Appeals as to the
determination of the appropriate crime or offense for which the petitioner
should have been convicted for.
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies
felonies according to the means by which they are committed, in particular: (1)
intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. These two types of felonies
are distinguished from each other by the existence or absence of malicious
intent of the offender –
In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the
offender is malicious. In the language of Art. 3, the act is performed with
deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in performing the act or in
incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another. In
culpable felonies, the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The
injury caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it
being simply the incident of another act performed without malice." (People
vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939). As stated in Art. 3, the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.34
In the Petition at
bar, this Court cannot, in good conscience, attribute to petitioner Calimutan
any malicious intent to injure, much less to kill, the victim Cantre; and in
the absence of such intent,
this Court cannot sustain the conviction of petitioner Calimutan for the
intentional crime of homicide, as rendered by the RTC and affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. Instead, this Court finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable
felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code expressly
provides for the definition of reckless imprudence –
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.
There are several
circumstances, discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, that demonstrate
petitioner Calimutan’s lack of intent to kill the victim Cantre, and
conversely, that substantiate the view of this Court that the death of victim
Cantre was a result of petitioner Calimutan’s reckless imprudence. The RTC and
the Court of Appeals may have failed to appreciate, or had completely
overlooked, the significance of such circumstances.
It should be
remembered that the meeting of the victim Cantre and witness Sañano, on the one
hand, and petitioner Calimutan and his helper Bulalacao, on the other, was a
chance encounter as the two parties were on their way to different
destinations. The victim Cantre and witness Sañano were on their way home from
a drinking spree in Crossing Capsay, while petitioner Calimutan and his helper
Bulalacao were walking from the market to Crossing Capsay. While the evidence
on record suggests that a running grudge existed between the victim Cantre and
Bulalacao, it did not establish that there was likewise an existing animosity
between the victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan.
In both versions of
the events of 04 February 1996 submitted by the prosecution and the defense, it
was the victim Cantre who
was the initial aggressor. He suddenly punched Bulalacao, the helper and
companion of petitioner Calimutan, when they met on the road. The attack of the
victim Cantre was swift and unprovoked, which spurred petitioner Calimutan into
responsive action. Given that this Court dismisses the claim of
petitioner Calimutan that the victim Cantre was holding a knife, it does take into
account that the victim
Cantre was considerably older and bigger, at 26 years of age and with a height
of five feet and nine inches, compared to Bulalacao, the boy he attacked, who
was only 15 years old and stood at about five feet. Even with his bare
hands, the victim Cantre could have hurt Bulalacao. Petitioner Calimutan sought only to protect
Bulalacao and to stop the assault of the victim Cantre against the latter when
he picked up a stone and threw it at the victim Cantre. The stone was
readily available as a weapon to petitioner Calimutan since the incident took
place on a road. That he threw the stone at the back of the victim Cantre does
not automatically imply treachery on the part of petitioner Calimutan as it is
highly probable that in the midst of the fray, he threw the stone rashly and
impulsively, with no regard as to the position of the victim Cantre. When the victim Cantre stopped
his aggression after being hit by the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan, the
latter also desisted from any other act of violence against the victim Cantre.
The above-described
incident could not have taken more than just a few minutes. It was a very brief
scuffle, in which the parties involved would hardly have the time to ponder
upon the most appropriate course of action to take. With this in mind, this
Court cannot concur in the declaration made by the Court of Appeals that
petitioner Calimutan threw the stone at the victim Cantre as a retaliatory act.
It was evidently a swift and spontaneous reaction to an unexpected and
unprovoked attack by the victim Cantre on Bulalacao. That Bulalacao was already able to run away from
the victim Cantre may have escaped the notice of the petitioner Calimutan who,
under the pressure of the circumstances, was forced to act as quickly as
possible.
The prosecution did not establish that petitioner
Calimutan threw the stone at the victim Cantre with the specific intent of
killing, or at the very least, of harming the victim Cantre. What is obvious to this Court was petitioner
Calimutan’s intention to drive away the attacker who was, at that point, the
victim Cantre, and to protect his helper Bulalacao who was, as earlier
described, much younger and smaller in built than the victim Cantre.3
Granting that
petitioner Calimutan was impelled by a lawful objective when he threw the stone
at the victim Cantre, his act was committed with inexcusable lack of
precaution. He failed to consider that a stone the size of a man’s fist could
inflict substantial injury on someone. He also miscalculated his own strength,
perhaps unaware, or even completely disbelieving, that he could throw a stone
with such force as to seriously injure, or worse, kill someone, at a quite
lengthy distance of ten meters.
Since it is
irrefragable that the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at the victim Cantre
was the proximate cause of the latter’s death, despite being done with reckless
imprudence rather than with malicious intent, petitioner Calimutan remains
civilly liable for such death. This Court, therefore, retains the reward made
by the RTC and the Court of Appeals to the heirs of the victim Cantre of the
amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death and another P50,000.00 as
moral damages.
WHEREFORE, the
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23306, dated 29
August 2001, affirming the Decision of the RTC in Criminal Case No. 8184, dated
19 November 1998, is hereby MODIFIED.
Petitioner 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.
SO ORDERED.