You are on page 1of 5

PROXIMATE CAUSE- EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ORLITO

Doctrine: Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the

FACTS: In the early morning of 2 am January, while Danilo Cruz was buying bread from the store of Cristina Mendeja
located, Villacorta suddenly appeared out of nowhere and stabbed Cruz in the left side of his body using a sharpened.
Mendeja chased Villacorta but did not succeed to caught him.

When Cristine Mendeja returned to the store, her neighbor Aron was already tending to the wounds of Cruz, removing
the bamboo stick out of his body.

Cruz was brought to the hospital on January 23, 2002 where he was treated as an out-patient. Twenty-three days later,
on February 14, Cruz was once again rushed to the hospital because of the symptoms of tetanus infection. He later died
on the next day.

RTC found accused Orlito Villacorta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and was sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

CA further affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Cruz appealed to SC and argued that he is only liable for the crime of slight physical injuries as stabbing of Cruz is not the
direct cause of his death.

ISSUE: WON Villacorta is guilty of murder.

RULING: NO. 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.

In this case, immediately after he was stabbed by Villacorta in the early morning of January 23, 2002, Cruz was rushed to
and treated as an out-patient at the Tondo Medical Center. On February 14, 2002, Cruz was admitted to the San Lazaro
Hospital for symptoms of severe tetanus infection, where he died the following day, on February 15, 2002.

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.

The decision of the CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment was entered finding Villacorta guilty beyong
reasonable doubt of the crime of slight physical injuries and sentenced to suffer the penalty of 30 days arresto menor.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

2. JACINTO VS PEOPLE

-Petitioner Gemma Jacinto together with Anita Busog de Valencia y Rivera and Jacqueline Capitle, EMPLOYEES OF MEGA
FOAM INTL was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, with the crime of Qualified Theft.
-June 1997 Baby Aquino, collector of Mega Foam, a post dated checked worth P10,000 as payment for Baby’s purchases
from Mega Foam International, Inc.
The said check was deposited to the account of Jacqueline Capitle’s husband-Generoso. Rowena Recablanca, another
employee of Mega Foam, received a phone call from an employee of Land Bank, who was looking for Generoso to
inform Capitle that the BDO check deposited had been dishonored. Thereafter, Joseph Dyhenga talked to Baby to tell
that the BDO Check bounced. However, Baby said that she had already paid Mega Foam P10,000 cash in August 1997 as
replacement for the dishonored check.
Dyhengco filed a compliant with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and worked out an entrapment operation
with its agents. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia were arrested. The NBI filed a criminal case for qualified theft against
the two (2) and Jacqueline Capitle.

RTC rendered a decision that Gemma, Anita and Jacqueline GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED
THEFT and each of the sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Five (5) years, Five (5) months and Eleven (11) days to Six (6)
years, Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed falls the definition of Impossible Crime.

HELD: Yes, Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioner’s act of receiving the cash replacement should
not be considered as continuation of the Theft.

The requisites of an impossible crime are:

1. That the Act performed would be an offer against persons or property;


2. That the act was alone with evil intent; and
3. That its accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute to a violation of another provision in the RPC

The time that petitioner took a possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had performed all the acts to
consummate that crime of theft had it not been impossible of accomplishment in this case.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of an impossible crime and suffer
the penalty of Six (6) months of arresto mayor and pay courts

3. PEOPLE VS DOMASIAN

March 11, 1982 morning: While Enrico was walking with Tirso Ferreras, his classmate, along Roque street in the
poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was approached by Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in getting his father's
signature on a medical certificate.

Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle to Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man went
into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became apprehensive and started to cry when, instead of taking him to the
hospital, the man flagged a minibus and forced him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The man told him to stop
crying or he would not be returned to his father.

When they alighted at Gumaca, they took another tricycle, this time bound for the municipal building from where they
walked to the market. Here the man talked to a jeepney driver and handed him an envelope addressed to Dr. Enrique
Agra, the boy's father. The two then boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente. As Enrico was crying and being firmly
held, Alexander Grate, the tricycle driver became suspicious and asked Domasian about his relationship with the boy
who told him they were brothers.

Their physical differences and the wide gap between their ages made Grate doubt so he immediately reported the
matter to two barangay tanods when his passengers alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the tanods went after the two
and saw the man dragging the boy. Noticing that they were being pursued, Domasian was able to escape, leaving Enrico
behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger jeep when he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital
ambulance and already looking for him.
At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after Enrico's return, Agra received an envelope containing a ransom
note. The note demanded P1 million for the release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be killed. Agra
thought the handwriting in the note was familiar. After comparing it with some records in the hospital, he gave the note
to the police, which referred it to the NBI for examination
March 11, 1982 1:45 pm: Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note demanding P1 million otherwise Enrico
will be killed. . Agra thought the handwriting in the note was familiar so he referred it to the NBI for examination and it
turned out to be Dr. Samson Tan’s signature.
Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon
Domasian’s alibi: at the time of the incident he was watching a mahjong game in a friend's house and later went to an
optical clinic with his wife for the refraction of his eyeglasses
Dr. Tan’s alibi: he was in Manila
Enrico, Tirso Ferreras and Grate all pointed Domasian.
RTC: Domasian and Tan guilty as charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all
accessory penalties appealed.

ISSUE: W/N Domasian and Tan is guilty of kidnapping kidnapping with serious illegal detention

HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED


Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention may consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure but also in
detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty
• Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding that the sending of the ransom note was an impossible crime
which he says is not punishable.
• Tan conveniently forgets the first paragraphs of the same article, which clearly applies to him, thus:
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
• Even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had already been
committed. The act cannot be considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of its
accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means. The sending of the ransom note would have
had the effect only of increasing the penalty to death under the last paragraph of Article 267 although this too would
not have been possible under the new Constitution.
• On the issue of conspiracy, we note first that it exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through physical volition of one or all, proceeding
severally or collectively. These acts were complementary to each other and geared toward the attainment of the
common ultimate objective, viz., to extort the ransom of P1 million in exchange for Enrico's life.
• The motive for the offense is not difficult to discover. According to Agra, Tan approached him 6 days before the
incident happened and requested a loan of at least P15,000.00. Agra said he had no funds at that moment and Tan did
not believe him, angrily saying that Agra could even raise a million pesos if he really wanted to help.

4. INTOD VS CA

FACTS:
• February 4, 1979: Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's
house and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, they had a meeting with
Aniceto Dumalagan who told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between
them and that Mandaya should accompany them. Otherwise, he would also be killed.
• February 4, 1979 10:00 pm: All of them armed arrived at Palangpangan's house and fired at Palangpangan's bedroom
but there was no one in the room.
• RTC: convicted Intod of attempted murder based on the testimony of the witness

ISSUE: W/N Intod is guilty attempted murder since it is an impossible crime under Art. 4 (2)
HELD: YES. petition is hereby GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of
Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED. sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, together
with the accessory penalties provided by the law, and to pay the costs
• Art. 4(2). CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. — Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred:
xxx xxx xxx
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it with
bullets made the crime inherently impossible.
• The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the offender his formidability to punish
criminal tendencies in Art. 4(2)
• Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime
• Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where
1. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law
2. there is intention to perform the physical act
3. there is a performance of the intended physical act
4. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime
o Ex: The impossibility of killing a person already dead
• Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime – this case
o Ex: man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the
pocket empty
• United States: where the offense sought to be committed is factually impossible or accomplishment - attempt to
commit a crime; legally impossible of accomplishment - cannot be held liable for any crime

5. PEOPLE VS MARCO

Lessons Applicable: Proximate cause, Conspiracy


• November 5, 1964 2:30 pm: It was raining and there was a fiesta being celebrated within the vicinity of the market
place of Barrio Subang, Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur. Constancio Sabelbero was approached by Simeon Marco who
asked him if he was the one who boxed the latter's brother the previous year. Constancio denied. Then Simeon asked if
he had cigarettes and when he said he had none, Simeon said, "I have cigarettes; here is my cigarette", as he pulled out
a one-foot long hunting knife. Frightened, Constancio ran away and Simeon chased him. As Constancio was passing by
Rafael Marco, father of Simeon, he struck Constancio with a round cane, hitting him on the left ear and left shoulder.
• Vicente, the father of Constancio, who was in the crowd heard a shout of "Fight! Fight!". He saw Simeon about to
stab Constancio, so he grabbed the hand of Simeon that was holding the knife. Then, Rafael Marco approached him
armed with a cane and a hunting knife. Sensing danger, Vicente shouted to Constancio and his other son Bienvenido,
who appeared on the scene, to run away. Vicente and Constancio was able to run away but Bienvenido was chased and
stabbed by Rafael which wounded his left hand. Bienvenido tried to run Vicente, but his foot got caught in a vine on the
ground and he fell. Out of nowhere, Dulcisimo Beltran, who was accused arrived and stabbed Bienvenido near his anus
while he had his two hands touching the floor and both feet in a forward position. Beltran was followed by Simeon who
stabbed Bienvenido on the left breast and the upper part of the left arm. Then, Rafael, Simeon and Beltran ran
away. Bienvenido got up slowly and walked zigzagly towards the store of Pinda where he fell to the ground. Vicente
asked him what happened and he said he was ganged up then died.
• Criminal Case No. 2758: Rafael Marco was convicted of slight physical injuries and his son, Simeon, was acquitted
• Criminal Case No, 2757: Rafael Marco, Dulcisimo Beltran, and Simeon Marco, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength. Sentenced Rafael Marco to reclusion perpetua. While,
Dulcisimo Beltran and Simeon Marco who surrendered voluntarily sentenced EACH to an indeterminate penalty
consisting of 10 YEARS and 1 DAY of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 YEARS, 4 MONTHS, and 1 DAY of reclusion
temporal as maximum

ISSUE: W/N Rafael Marco should be guilty of murder.


HELD: NO. modified Rafael Marco guilty of slight physical injuries
• while it is true that Rafael started by stabbing Bienvenido on the left hand, there is no clear evidence connecting his
act with those of Beltran and Simeon. If Rafael had any intention to really kill Bienvenido, he did not have to await for
Simeon and Beltran to do it.
• The stabbing by the 3 was not simultaneous. Rather, it was successive. The manner in which the incident occurred
indicates that there was no pre-conceived plan among the 3. There is absolutely no showing that Rafael knew of the
criminal intentions of Dulcisimo Beltran or Simeon Marco as to the decedent. Neither is there any showing that after
the decedent was able to run away that Rafael shouted to Dulcisimo Beltran or Simeon Marco for assistance. Or that he
gave them any inciting or encouraging words, or that he even joined them
• The accused must be shown to have had guilty participation in the criminal design entertained by the slayer, and this
presupposes knowledge on his part of such criminal design. It is not enough that there be a relation between the acts
done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as co-principal or accomplice; it is furthermore,
necessary that the latter, with knowledge of the former's criminal intent, should cooperate with moral or material aid in
the consummation of the crime.
• The ensuing death was not the direct, natural and logical consequence of the wound inflicted by Rafael. There was an
active intervening cause, which was no other than the sudden and appearance and participation of Simeon Marco and
Beltran.

6. PEOPLE VS HENRY

Fact:
An Information filed against respondent is an offshoot of this Court’s which nullified the various contracts awarded by
the Government. Subsequent to the Decision, a certain Pesayco filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman
against several individuals for alleged violation of R.A. 3019. Among those charged was herein respondent, who was
then the Chairman and President of PIATCO, for having supposedly conspired with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile
(Secretary Enrile) in entering into a contract which is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict, among others, herein respondent for
violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. While there was likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary Enrile, he
was no longer indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the resolution finding probable cause. The
Sandiganbayan issued an Order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused considering that the accused is a private person and the public official Arturo Enrile, his alleged
co-conspirator, is already deceased, and not an accused in this case. The Sandiganbayan grants the Motion to Quash and
the Information filed in this case is hereby ordered quashed and dismissed. Hence this case.

Issue: Whether the death of a Public Officer in a crime extinguishes the Liability of his co-conspirators

Held: No, It is true that by reason of death, there is no longer any public officer with whom respondent can be charged
for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be
proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of public officer is
his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy
between him and private respondent. Stated differently, the death of a public officer does not mean that there was no
public officer who allegedly violated Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019, that there was probable cause to the public officer for
infringement of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. 3019. Were it not for his death, he should have been charged. The
requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that
such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not
require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where
the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the
private person may be indicted alone

You might also like