PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:

URBANO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

 The petitioner filed for review under Rule 45, which seeks to reverse and set aside the
Decision on January 25, 2008 to the Court of Appeals (CA). This aimed to modify the
Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (Lingayen, Pangasinan) from charging the
petitioner, Rodel Urbano, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Homicide.

 Petitioner asserted that the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a

wrong and sufficient provocation on the part of the victim ought to be appreciated in
petitioner's favor.

 The deceased (Brigido Tomelden), along with the petitioner (Rodel Urbano) arrived at
the compound of the Lingayen Water District (LIWAD). Subsequently, they had several
liquors in a certain restaurant. While inside the compound, the two had a heated
conversation. The former impelled some insulting remarks to petitioner. Such heated
exchange of words resulted to several exchange of blows. According to the eyewitnesses,
Urbano delivered a ‘lucky punch’ on the face of the deceased (Tomelden), which made the
latter to topple down. Were it not for the companions of the petitioner and the deceased,
Tomelden would have hit his head on the ground and his fall would have not prevented.
However, the blow had tremendously shocked the deceased, which made his nose bleed.
Tomelden became unconscious. Further, the deceased complained to his wife, Rosario, of
pain in his nape, head, and ear. Tomolden was in a state of drowsiness and frequent
nausea. Then, he went to the hospital. Doctors diagnosed that the deceased suffered from
"brain injury, secondary to mauling to consider cerebral hemorrhage." Eventually,
Tomelden died due to "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral concussion with
resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident." In defense of Urbano, he denied
of having any intention to kill Tomelden. He asserted that hypertension was the cause of
death of the latter. Tomelden was formerly treating himself due to hypertension.

Narrative of the Petitioner:

 Navarro asked the Urbano to inform Tomelden to leave the restaurant. Then, Tomelden
insulted the former. Tomelden told Urbano he could not stop him from drinking, for they
both shared for the bill.
 Tomelden allegedly slapped and spilled some insults at Urbano, calling him "sipsip" just to
maintain his employment as Navarro's tricycle driver. Such encounter happened at the
LIWAD Compound. Petitioner maintained that the his ‘lucky punch’, amidst the course of
parrying the blows of the deceased, was not deliberately done to kill Tomelden.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the rulings rendered by the RTC of Lingayen and the Court of Appeals correct
RULING of the Lower Courts:
 The RTC of Lingayen rendered judgment; the petitioner is guilty as charged. beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the the crime of
HOMICIDE. Penalties arose from Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code; RTC ruled in the
absence of any Modifying Circumstances. The accused was to be penalized by to
indeterminate imprisonment with the term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision
Mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of Reclusion Temporal as
maximum. Indemnities shall be rendered to the legal heirs of the deceased, amounting to
PHP 50,000.00,
 CA affirmed the decision rendered by the RTC, which adhered to the absence of any
qualifying circumstances. The appellate court also stressed that the proximate cause of
the death of Tomelden was the lucky punch. He was further hospitalized due to the
concussion caused by the punch.

RULING of the Supreme Court:

No, considering that the lower courts both erred in appreciating that; (1) mitigating
circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim was present, and (2) lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong was present, which shall be in favor of the petitioner . The
court deemedthat petition is only partly meritous. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 13, RPC provides:
 Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances.-- Par 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed; Par 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part
of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
 The insulting remarks of the deceased was directed at petitioner. He uttered irritating
statements towards the petitioner. Petitioner was the one provoked and challenged to a
fist fight. Moreover, the mitigating circumstance that petitioner had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed should also be appreciated in his favor. Considering
that the Petitioner tried to avoid the fight due to the fact that Tomelden is bigger than him.
He tried to parry the blows of Tomelden, however the ‘lucky punch’ struck the victim
gravely. As such, the mitigating circumstance is that there is "no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed". The court appreciated such in favor of petitioner, also,
finding him guilty of homicide.
 Penalty rendered; Provided by Art. 249 of RPC; reclusion temporal or from 12 years and
one day to 20 years.
 With the appreciation of two mitigating circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed and of sufficient provocation from the victim, and the application
of par. 5 of Art. 64, RPC; the next lower penalty prescribed for homicide. Further, prision
mayor or from six years and one day to 12 years, prision correccional as minimum, and
prision mayor as maximum are also to be posed. Eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as maximum period is proper and a period of two (2) years and four (4) months of
prision correccional as minimum period are imposable to the accused.
 There is no reason to modify the award of civil indemnity and moral damages. The rest of
judgement is affirmed.

Additional notes