8/12/2019 Urbano vs IAC
1/2
FILOMENO URBANO vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 72964 Janua ! 7, "9##
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano went to his
ricefield at Baran a! "nonan , #an Fabian, $an asinan located at
abo%t 100 metersfrom the tobacco seedbed of &arcelo 'avier. (e
fo%nd the place where he stored his pala! flooded with water comin
from the irri ation canal nearb!which had overflowed. Urbano went
to the elevated portion of the canal to see what happened and there
he saw &arcelo 'avier and )milio )rfe c%ttin
rass. (e as*ed them who was responsible for the openin of the
irri ation canal and 'avier admitted that he was the one. Urbano
then ot an r! and
demanded that 'avier pa! for his soa*ed pala!. " +%arrel between
them ens%ed. Urbano %nsheathed his bolo and hac*ed 'avier hittin
him on theri ht palm of his hand, which was %sed in parr!in the
bolo hac*. 'avier who was then %narmed ran awa! from Urbano b%t was
overta*en b! Urbanowho hac*ed him a ain hittin 'avier on the left
le with the bac* portion of said bolo, ca%sin a swellin on said le
. hen Urbano tried to hac* andinflict f%rther in-%r!, his da% hter
embraced and prevented him from hac*in 'avier.
'avier was treated later treated b! r. &eneses b%t on
/ovember 1 , 1980 or 22 da!s after 'avier was r%shed to the /a
areth eneral (ospital in aver! serio%s condition. hen admitted to
the hospital, 'avier had loc*-aw and was havin conv%lsions. r.
)dm%ndo )4conde who personall! attendedto 'avier fo%nd that the
latter5s serio%s condition was ca%sed b! tetan%s to4in. (e noticed
the presence of a healin wo%nd in 'avier5s palm which co%ldhave
been infected b! tetan%s. 'avier died in the hospital.
ISSUE$ hether or not there was an efficient intervenin ca%se
from the time 'avier was wo%nded %ntil his death which wo%ld
e4c%lpate Urbano froman! liabilit! for 'avier5s death.
HELD$ $etition GRANTED.
6he case involves the application of "rticle of the 7evised
$enal ode which provides that riminal liabilit! shall be inc%rred:
;1< B! an! person
committin a felon! ;delito< altho% h the wron f%l act done be
different from that which he intended ... $%rs%ant to this
provision an acc%sed iscriminall! responsible for acts committed b!
him in violation of law and for all the nat%ral and lo ical
conse+%ences res%ltin therefrom. ;$eople v.
ardenas, => # 7" >31
8/12/2019 Urbano vs IAC
2/2
tetan%s that *illed him was not !et present. onse+%entl!,
'avier5s wo%nd co%ld have been infected with tetan%s after the
hac*in incident. onsiderinthe circ%mstance s%rro%ndin 'avier5s
death, his wo%nd co%ld have been infected b! tetan%s 2 or 3 or a
few b%t not 20 to 22 da!s before he died.
6he r%le is that the death of the victim m%st be the direct,
natural, and logical conse)uence of the wounds inflicted upon him
by the accused . ;$eople v.ardenas, s%pra< "nd since we are
dealin with a criminal conviction, the proof that the acc%sed
ca%sed the victim5s death m%st convince a rational
mind beyond reasonable doubt . 6he medical findin s, however,
lead %s to a distinct possibilit! that the infection of the wo%nd
b! tetan%s was anefficient intervenin ca%se later or between the
time 'avier was wo%nded to the time of his death. 6he infection
was, therefore, distinct and forei n tothe crime. ;$eople v.
7ellin, $hil. 1038
