URBANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No.

182750

RODEL URBANO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS: Sometime in September 28 year 1993 Brigido Tomeldan and Petittioner Rodel
Urbano having Drinking Session in a restaurant with co-workers in the compound of
the Lingayan Water District

While in the compound, the two exchanged a heated argument, with Tomelden hurling
insulting remarks at petitioner. Eventually, the verbal argument escalated into a physical
fight, wherein the petitioner delivered a lucky punch, as described by eyewitness Orje
Salazar, on Tomelden’s face, thus causing him to topple down.

The latter would’ve hit his head on the pavement were it not for their companions who
caught him. Nevertheless, the blow cause Tomelden’s nose to bleed and rendered him
unconscious. Subsequently, Tomelden was brought into the office of the general

The following day, he came home to his wife and informed her about the incident and
he also complained on his pains. The wife brough Tomelden to the Lingayen
Community Hospital and was treated by Dr. Daisy Arellano his lacerated finger,
contusions and hematoma in the right cerebrum.

A few days later, he went back to the hospital due to severe pain, drowsiness, and
vomiting. Due to the severity of the condition, he was brought to a different hospital
where he was diagnosed as suffering from brain injury. However, due to financial
constraints, Tomelden had to be discharged. As he was heading home with his wife, he
once again felt extreme pain. The couple then detoured to the initial hospital that they
went to but to no avail as Tomelden was no longer responding to any stimulant. On the
same day, Tomelden died at nine o’clock in the evening.

As for the petitioner’s part, he denied having any intention to kill Tomelden. The
petitioner claims that hypertension, for which Tomelden was receiving treatment, was
the cause of the latter’s death.

ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the petitioner is guilty for the crime of homicide; and

(2) Whether or not the court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of
sufficient provocation on the part of the victim and lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong in favor of the petitioner
 HELD: Yes, the Court ruled that petitioner herein is guilty for the crime of homicide.
Urbano is liable as charged for the crime of homicide under the proximate cause
doctrine. Urbano's act of hitting Tomelden on the face what was called lucky punch is
considered felonious act. This felonious act inflicted by Petittioner Urbano was the
proximate cause of the death of Tomelden.

As for the second issue, the Court finds merit in the contention of the petitioner. When
the law speaks of provocation, the reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the
offended party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone; it is not enough that the
provocative act be unreasonable or annoying.

In the instant case, Tomeldens insulting remarks directed at petitioner and uttered
immediately before the fist fight constituted sufficient provocation; petitioner was the one
provoked and challenged to a fist fight

Correlation to the lesson : Sufficient Provocation

Article 4 paragraph 4- That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceded the act.

It is necessary that there must be a sufficient threat or provocation on the part of the
offended party. That sufficient threat or provocation on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the commission of the crime

ELEMENTS (TOI)

1. That there be the existence of Threat or the existence of provocation which must be
sufficient.

2. The provocation must Originate from the offended party.

3. The provocation must be Immediate to the commission of the crime by the person
who had been

provoked.

A. The first element requires that there must be a provocation which must be sufficient.

Provocation refers to any improper or unjust act or conduct which excites or incites a
person to do a wrongful act.
Provocation is said to be sufficient when:

1. It is adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act, and

2. It is proportionate to the gravity of the act.

The first element requires that the provocation must be sufficient.

B. The second element requires that the provocation must come from the offended
party. If the provocation came from any other person not the offended party, then this
mitigating circumstance would not lie in favor of the accused. It is necessary that it is the
victim who provoked the offender or the accused.

C. The third element requires that the provocation must be immediate to the
commission of the crime by the person provoked.

The word immediate here does not allow a lapse of time. Right after the giving of the
provocation, the person provoked must immediately commit the criminal act in order
that this mitigating circumstance may lower his imposable penalty.

Provocation in order to be mitigating must be sufficient and immediately preceding act. (

People V. Pagal)

(US V. Carrero)Held : Aggression is in retaliation for insult, injury or threat, the offender
cannot successfully claim self defense, but at most he can be given the benefit of the
mitigating circumstance under the provisions of the paragraph 4 of Article 13

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. While intent to
kill may be presumed from the fact of the death of the victim, this mitigating factor may
still be considered when attendant facts and circumstances so warrant, as in the instant
case. - Praeter intentionem

Two Migitating Circumstances are therefore present in the commission of the crime.

1. Sufficient provocation

2. Prater Intentionem
 Consider: Petitioner tried to avoid the fight, being very much smaller than Tomelden.
He tried to parry the blows of Tomelden, albeit he was able, during the scuffle, to
connect a lucky punch that ended the fight. And lest it be overlooked, petitioner helped
carry his unconscious co-worker to the office of the LIWADs general manager. Surely,
such gesture cannot reasonably be expected from, and would be unbecoming of, one
intending to commit so grave a wrong as killing the victim.