You are on page 1of 2

[G.R. No.

L-204 May 16, 1947]


THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GERARDO CORNEL, defendant-appellant.

Facts:
This case was an appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Albay, sentencing the defendant for the crime of homicide.
The counsel of the defendant argued on two things: first, the alleged
inadequacy of evidence for the prosecution to establish the defendant’s
identity, and second, the cause of death of the victim possibly be from other
diseases which may exhibit tetanus-like symptoms.
The identity of the defendant was established through the testimonies of the
witnesses. According to them, the defendant assaulted Fabian Burac
(deceased) with a bolo as the latter was descending the stairs of his house
and caused him to fall off, the defendant then threw stones which hit
Fabian’s right clavicle, and fled in the direction of his own house. The
positive testimony of the witness, Fabian’s wife Trinidad, was given full
credit by the trial court as Trinidad knew the defendant well. Bendicio, on
the other hand, testified that Fabian told him he had been boloed by the
defendant before he died. Fabian survived the initial injuries sustained from
the bolo and stones but eventually died because of tetanus a few days after
the incident.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is liable for the victim’s death even though the
latter survived the initial injury caused by his felonious act.

Held:
Yes, the defendant is liable for the victim’s death even though the latter
survived the initial injury caused by his felonious act.
Article 4 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code states that “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.”
In this case, the victim died of tetanus as a complication of the felony
committed by the defendant. Thus, the defendant must be held liable for the
death of the victim as the natural consequence of his wrongful action. The
Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment with costs against the
defendant.

You might also like