8/13/2019 Digest G.R. No.

171951 Garcia vs People

Case Digest: Amado Alvarado Garcia vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 171951 28 August 2009

FACTS:

The Fozes were having a drinking spree at their apartment when Chy asked them to quiet down to which
Garcia commented that Chy was being arrogant and that one day he would lay a hand on him. Two days
later, the group decided to drink at a store owned by Chy’s sister, Esquibel. Chy was about to come out
of his house and upon being summoned, Garcia suddenly punched him. Chy continued to parry the
blows and when he found an opportunity to escape, he ran home and phoned his wife to call the police
regarding the mauling. He also complained of difficulty in breathing. He was found later unconscious on
the kitchen floor, salivating.

Cause of death is heart attack to which Garcia appeals that the injuries he caused were not as violent in
nature as to have caused the death of Chy. Garcia pleaded not guilty to the crime of homicide. The
autopsy doctor confirms that the boxing and the striking of the bottle beer on the victim could not have
caused any direct physical effect to cause the heart attack if the victim’s heart is healthy. What could
have caused said heart attack is the victims emotions concerning the violence inflicted upon him.

ISSUE:

Whether the circumstance of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should
be appreciated

RULING:

The circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the death of the victim does not
exempt him from criminal liability. Since he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said
condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
Nevertheless, said circumstance must be appreciated in favour of the petitioner. The fact that the
physical injuries he inflicted on the victim could not have naturally and logically caused the actual death
of the victim, if the latter’s heart is in good condition.

Considering this mitigating circumstance, imposable penalty should be in the minimum period, that is,
reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial court
properly imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digest-gr-no-171951-garcia-vs-people 1/1