THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE) VS.
DOMINGO not summon the doctor because he thought that the burns
URAL (ACCUSED-APPELLANT)
L-30801 MARCH 27 1974
J. AQUINO
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE CFI OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR
FACTS:
- Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a
policeman inside the jail where he was boxing prisoner
Napola (who was imprisoned for being drunk). When
Napola fell to the ground he U kicked him and poured some
liquid on N and then ignited N’s body.
- Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he
sustained 2nd degree burns on the arms, neck, left side of
the face and one half of the body including the back. She
also testified that without any medical intervention, the
burns would have caused death
- Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated
burn as the cause of death.
- During the trial, the prosecutors failed to present the
detention prisoners who saw the burning of Napola as
witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased
- Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced
to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay for costs
ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held: TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder.
- Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he
heard a scream for help from Napola whose shirt was in
flames when found by him, he removed the shirt, but did
were not serious.
o SC: this statement cannot prevail over the
testimony of Alberio
o This statement does not prove that he was not the
one who burned Napola, at most this could only
mean that he was alarmed by the consequences of
his evil act
- Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying
that he was not listed as a prosecution witness and that he
was convicted of murder in the past
o Wouldn’t preclude him from being a credible
witness.
o Since there was no police investigation (accused a
police officer), the investigation that ensued was
done by a special counsel of the fiscal’s office. A
possible explanation of alberio not being listed at
first.
o The statements of the witnesses for the defense
were not inconsistent with that of Alberio’s.
Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in
Alberio’s testimony.
- The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater
than what was intended).
o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1).
o TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating
circumstance “that the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed”
 No intent to kill but only to maltreat the
drunk napola who might have been making
a nuisance of himself
 He realized the fearful consequence of his
felonious act, he allowed Napola to secure
 medical treatment at the municipal
dispensary
- Since the mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating
circumstance, TC correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for
murder.

DECISION: TC decision AFFIRMED.