CRIMINAL LAW 1 Doctrine: Article 4, Paragraph 1, RPC.

– Doctrine of Aberratio ictus (Transferred intent)

Title: PEOPLE v. ADRIANO

Ponente: PEREZ, J. Date: 15 JULY 2015

Keywords: Crime of homicide, murder; SC dismissed the appeal. GR No. 205228

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON, Accused-Appellant.

appellee
Nature of the case: Appeal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (May 30, 2011) which affirmed the Decision of the RTC (April 7, 2009)

FACTS ISSUE/S RULING

FACTS
1. WON he was criminally liable 1. We refer back to the settled facts of the case. Bulanan, who
• Police Officers Matthew Garabiles and for the crime of murder of was merely a bystander, was killed by a stray bullet. He was
Alejandro Santos, in civilian clothes, were Ofelia Bulanan and not of at the wrong place at the wrong time.
on their way to Camp Olivas, Pampanga, homicide only through
riding a motorcycle along Olongapo- wreckless imprudence – YES. Adriano's original intent was to kill Cabiedes. However,
Gapan National Road where they saw two during the commission of the crime of murder, a stray bullet
 cars; a blue Toyota Corrolla and a maroon
Honda CRV.
• When the Corolla reached alongside the
CRV, the passenger on the front seat of
the Corolla shot the CRV and caused the
CRV to swerve and fall in the canal in the
road embankment.
• Then, four armed men alighted the
Corolla and started shooting at Cabiedes
at the driver’s seat as well as shooting a
bystander Ofelia Bulanan who later died
from gunshot wounds before
immediately leaving the crime scene.
• During the investigation, the police
learned that the Corolla was registered
under the name of Antonio Rivera but
was renter to Adriano.
• Adriano arrived at Antonio’s shop where
he was arrested by the two police officers.
• The RTC rejected Adriano’s defense of alibi
on the ground that it was not supported
2. WON treachery can be
appreciated in aberratio
ictus? - YES
2. The present case is a case of murder by ambush. In ambush,
hit and killed Bulanan. Adriano is responsible for the
consequences of his act of shooting Cabiedes.
At the outset, Adriano had no intention to kill Bulanan,
much less, employ any particular means of attack. Logically,
Bulanan's death was random and unintentional and the
method used to kill her, as she was killed by a stray a bullet,
was, by no means, deliberate. Nonetheless, Adriano is
guilty of the death of Bulanan under Article 4 of the
Revised Penal Code, pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio
ictus, which imposes criminal liability for the acts
committed in violation of law and for all the natural and
logical consequences resulting therefrom. While it may not
have been Adriano's intention to shoot Bulanan, this fact
will not exculpate him. Bulanan' s death caused by the
bullet fired by Adriano was the natural and direct
consequence of Adriano's felonious deadly assault against
Cabiedes.
the crime is carried out to ensure that the victim is killed
 and convincing evidence as well as
Adriano’s alibi cannot prevail over the
testimonies of credible witnesses who
positively claimed Adriano as one of the
perpetrators of the crime.
CFI/ RTC ruling:
April 7, 2009: Finding accused Rolly Adriano
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, as
charged, for the death of Danilo Cabiedes and
Homicide, as charged, for the death of Ofelia
Bulanan.
CA ruling:
May 30, 2011: APPEAL DENIED: Decision of the
RTC is AFFIRMED subject to the modification that
the award as civil indemnity to the heirs of
Danilo Cabiedes is increased.
and at the same time, to eliminate any risk from any
possible defenses or retaliation from the victim— ambush
exemplifies the nature of treachery.
Although Bulanan's death was by no means deliberate, we
shall adhere to the prevailing jurisprudence pronounced in
People v. Flora, where the Court ruled that treachery may
be appreciated in aberratio ictus. In Flora, the accused was
convicted of two separate counts of murder: for the killing
of two victims, Emerita, the intended victim, and Ireneo, the
victim killed by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the
presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery,
qualified both killings to murder. The material facts in Flora
are similar in the case at bar. Thus, we follow the Flora
doctrine.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.

Appellant-appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER for the killing of DANILO CABIEDES and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is ordered to pay the heirs of DANILO CABIEDES.

Accused-appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER.

Notes:

Art. 4, RPC. 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.

1. 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.

Aberratio Ictus is mistake in the blow.

Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from that which is intended. One who commits an
intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally or logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. The rationale of
the rule is found in the doctrine, 'el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado ', or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.