Calimutan vs.

People

482 SCRA 44, February 9, 2006

Chico-Nazario, J.:

FACTS:

• This is a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Rollie Calimutan prays for
the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirms the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate, Masbate dated
November 19, 1998, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide under Art 249 of the RPC.
• February 4, 1996, petitioner, with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and throws a stone at Philip Cantre,
hitting him at the back left portion of his body, resulting in laceration of the
spleen due to the impact which cause his death a day after.
• December 2, 1996, a warrant for arrest for the petitioner was issued.
• January 9, 1997, petitioner was released after posting sufficient bail bond.
• May 21, 1997, during arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
• Prosecution’s version of the incident, based on witnesses’ testimony:
• On Feb. 4, 1996, at 10:00am, Cantre, witness Sañano, and two others, had a
drinking spree at a videoke bar in Crossing Capsay, Panique, Aroroy, Masbate.
• From the bar, Cantre and Sañano, proceeded to go home, but along the way
they met petitioner Calimutan and one Michael Bulalacao.
• Cantre holds a grudge against Bulalacao, suspecting the latter as the culprit
who threw stones at his house the previous night.
• Upon seeing Bulalacao, Cantre suddenly punched him.
• While Bulalacao ran away, petitioner Calimutan dashed toward the backs of
Cantre and Sañano then picked up a stone, as big as a man’s fist, which he
threw at Cantre, hitting him at the left side of his back.
• When hit by the stone, Cantre stopped and held his back.
• Sañano tried to pacify the two; trying to convince petitioner to put down another
stone he was already holding and urged Cantre and Calimutan to just go home.
• Sañano accompanied Cantre home and on the way, the latter complained of
pain in the left side of his back that was hit by the stone.
• That night, Cantre alternately felt cold and then warm; sweating profusely and
hist entire body felt numb. The family wanted to bring him to the hospital but
they had no vehicle.
• At 3:00am of February 5, 1996, Cantre asked for some food to which he was
able to eat a little but later vomited. For the last time, he complained of
backache and stomach ache, and, later on, he died.
• Cantre was examined by Dr. Conchita S. Ulanday and stated that the cause
of death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to suspected food poisoning.
• Unsatisfied, the Cantre family requested for an exhumation and autopsy of the
body by the Senior Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, Dr. Mendez, to which they
reported that the cause of the death was traumatic injury of the abdomen.
• Defence’s version of the incident, based on the sole testimony of the
accused Calimutan:
• On February 4, 1:00pm, Calimutan was walking with his house helper,
Bulalacao, to Crossing Capsay, Panique, Aroroy, Masbate, when they met with
the Cantre and Sañano.
• Cantre took hold of Bulalacao and punched him several times to which
Calimutan attempted to pacify Cantre, but the latter refused to calm down,
pulling out an eight-inch Batangas knife uttering that he was looking for trouble.
• At this point, Calimutan was ten meters away from Cantre. When he saw that
the latter was about to stab Bulalacao, Calimutan picked up a stone, which he
described as only one-inch in diameter, and threw it at Cantre.
• He hit Cantre on his right buttock. After, Bulalacao and Calimutan started to run
away, and Cantre chased after them, but Sañano was able to pacify Cantre.
• Calimutan allegedly reported the incident to the kagawad of Barangay Panique
and to the police.
• Calimutan was totally unaware of the what happened to Cantre after the stoning
incident.
• He later found out that Cantre died the following day because of food poisoning.
• Calimutan asserts that he has no grudge against Cantre previous the stoning.
 • The RTC adopted the prosecution’s version of the incident and found
Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide under Art. 249 of the
RPC and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law to which the penalty is
imprisonment from eight years of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve years
and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
• Petitioner Calimutan appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of
Appeals (CA) but sustained the conviction of homicide rendered by the RTC.
• Hence, the current petition for review on certiorari.
• Petitioner contends that there is reasonable doubt and that he should be
acquitted.
• ISSUE: WON1 petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• RULING:
• Yes, the Supreme Court (SC) finds that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt
to hold petitioner Calimutan liable for the death of the victim Cantre.
• Undoubtedly, the exhumation and autopsy report and the personal testimony
before the RTC of prosecution witness, NBI Senior Medico-Legal Officer Dr.
Mendez, are vital pieces of evidence against petitioner Calimutan. Dr. Mendez
determined that the victim Cantre died of internal hemorrhage or bleeding due
to the laceration of his spleen. In his testimony, Dr. Mendez clearly and
consistently explained that the spleen could be lacerated or ruptured when the
abdominal area was hit with a blunt object, such as the stone thrown by
petitioner Calimutan at the victim Cantre.
• While the SC aligns with the factual findings of the RTC and the CA, it is at
variance with the lower courts as to the determination of the appropriate
crime or offense of the petitioner.
• The SC cannot, in good conscience, attribute to the petitioner Calimutan any
malicious intent to injure or kill the victim Cantre.
• In the absence of such intent, the SC cannot sustain the conviction of the
petitioner for the intentional crime of homicide.
• Instead, the SC finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under
Art. 365 of the RPC.

1
“Whether or not” (You may write the phrase if you want).
• The SC explains that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without
malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing
or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances
regarding persons, time and place.
• The meeting of Cantre and Calimutan was only by chance, while the record
shows that a running grudge existed between the Cantre and Bulalacao, there
was none existing between Cantre and Calimutan.
• It was Cantre who was the initial aggressor, which urged Calimutan to respond.
The latter was only doing it to protect Bulalacao and to stop the assault of
Cantre against the latter.
• Also, the prosecution did not establish that Calimutan threw the stone at Cantre
with the intent to kill, or at least, of harming him. What is clear to the SC was
Calimutan’s intention to stop the attack of Cantre on his helper Bulalacao.
• Hence, the decision of the CA is modified. Petitioner is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, under Art. 365
of the RPC and is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period
of 4 months of arresto mayor to a maximum period of two years and one day of
prision correccional.