Urbano vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court stated that he saw the deceased catching fish in
G.R. No. 72964, 7 January 1988 the shallow irrigation canals on November 5. The
motion was denied by the respondent court.
TOPIC: Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal
liability shall be incurred: Hence, this petition.
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) ISSUE:
although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended. Whether or not the wound inflicted by Urbano to
2. By any person performing an act which would be Javier may be considered as the proximate cause
an offense against persons or property, were it not of the latter’s death which would make Urbano
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment criminally liable.
or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means. HELD:
FACTS: No, the wound inflicted by Urbano cannot be
considered as the proximate cause of Javier’s
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano death. Therefore, Urbano is not criminally liable.
(Urbano) was on his way to his ricefield when he
discovered that the place where he stored palay The Court defined proximate cause as “that cause
was flooded with water coming from an irrigation which, in natural and continuous sequence,
canal. When he investigated the area, he saw unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
Marcelino Javier (Javier) and Emilio Efre (Efre). produces the injury, and without which the result
Javier admitted that he opened the irrigation canal. would not have occurred.” In this case, the death of
A quarrel ensued, and Urbano started to hack the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical
Javier with a bolo. Javier was wounded at the right consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by
palm of his hand. the accused. And since we are dealing with a
criminal conviction, the proof that the accused
Upon intervention, Urbano and Javier had an caused the victim’s death must convince a rational
amicable settlement. Urbano agreed to shoulder all mind beyond reasonable doubt.
the expenses for the medication of the wound of
Javier, as well as to pay also whatever loss of The Court ruled that Urbano is not liable for the
income Javier may have suffered. Javier, on the death of Javier. Urbano is only liable for the
other hand, signed a statement of his forgiveness physical injuries inflicted to Javier through the
towards Urbano and on that condition, he withdrew wound on the right palm of his hand. The Court
the complaint that he filed against Urbano. took into account the average incubation period of
tetanus toxin, and medical evidence indicated that
After several weeks of treatments and medication, patients affected with tetanus experience its
the doctor pronounced that the wound of Javier symptoms within 14 days. If, indeed, Javier had
was already healed. However, on November 14, incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound
1980, Javier was rushed to the hospital when he inflicted by Urbano, he would not have experienced
had sudden lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor the symptoms on the 23rd day after the hacking
found the condition to be caused by tetanus toxin incident.
which infected from the healing wound in his right
palm of his hand. The following day, on November The medical findings lead to a distinct possibility
15, 1980, Javier died. that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an
efficient intervening cause later or between the time
The heirs of Javier filed a case of homicide against Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The
Urbano. Urbano was charged with homicide and infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the
was found guilty both by the trial court and on crime. However, the act of Javier working in his
appeal by the Intermediate Appellate Court. farm where the soil is filthy, using his own hands, is
an efficient supervening cause which relieves
In the resolution, appellate court ruled that the case Urbano of any liability for the death of Javier.
involves the application of Article 4 of the Revised
Penal Code which provides that "Criminal liability There is a likelihood that the wound was but the
shall be incurred: (1) By any person committing a remote cause and its subsequent infection, for
felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus
different from that which he intended. may have been the proximate cause of Javier's
death with which the petitioner had nothing to do.
The record is clear that Marcelo Javier was hacked
by the petitioner who used a bolo. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
Under these circumstances, the lower courts ruled GRANTED. The questioned decision of the then
that Javier's death was the natural and logical Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of
consequence of Urbano's unlawful act. Hence, he Appeals, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
was declared responsible for Javier's death. petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of
homicide.
Urbano then filed a motion for a new trial based on
the affidavit sworn by the Barangay Captain who
