10 People V Nepomuceno

PEOPLE V. NEPOMUCENO, JR.
Article 3 of RPC- Felonies are committed either thru dolo (deceit) or culpa
(fault) Facts: Accused-appellant Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr. has appealed in regard to the decision
finding him guilty of the crime of parricide as defined and penalized under Article 246 of RPC for the
death of Grace Nepomuceno. On May 2, 1994 in Manila, the said accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, attack,
assault and use personal violence upon the person of one GRACE NEPOMUCENO Y BENITEZ, his wife,
with whom he was married in lawful wedlock, by then and there shooting her with a gun of unknown
caliber hitting her on the left hip, thereby inflicting upon the victim a fatal gunshot wound.
The prosecution presented Monserrat de Leon, sister of the victim,who declared that Grace would
confide to her that accused-appellant was jobless and that Grace had problems with the low income of
the store she owned at Zurbaran Mart as compared to her expenses. Accusedappellant would force sex
on Grace especially when he was drunk. Defense claimed that the accused was initially thinking about
ending his life by shooting himself because of the financial woes and his wife’s relentless pestering and
nagging, but in the process of both spouses’ struggle to take possession of the gun, it went off and hit
Grace.
Issue: 1) WON THE KILLING WAS ACCIDENTAL, AND THAT THE DECEASED WAS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY (NO!) 2) MAIN ISSUE AS TO ARTICLE 3: WON THE KILLING WAS DUE TO SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE
(NO!) 3) WON ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF PARRICIDE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (YES!)
HELD: 1) No. First, accused-appellant cannot Paragraph 4, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code in order
to be exempted from criminal liability. Said provision pertinently states:
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. The following are exempt from criminal
liability: 4) Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.
Accident to be exempting, presupposes that the act done is lawful. Here, however, the act of
accusedappellant of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, the same not being in self-defense, is
unlawful -- it at least constitutes light threats (Article 285, par. 1). There is thus no room for the
invocation of accident as a ground for exemption. The gun was not even licensed or registered hence, he
could have been charged with illegal possession of a firearm. Secondly, appellant's claim that the
shooting happened when he tried to prevent his wife from killing herself and he and his wife grappled
for the possession of the gun is belied by the expert testimony of Dr. Arizala of the who conducted a
second post mortem examination. Moreover, the act of accused ordering Eden Ontog to call a taxi in
which he brought the wounded Grace to the hospital is "merely an indication or act of repentance or
contrition on the part of appellant. Accusedappellant's voluntary surrender is not sufficient ground to
exculpate him from criminal liability. The law merely considers such act as a mitigating circumstance.
Nonflight is not proof of innocence.
2) No. What qualifies an act of reckless or simple negligence or imprudence is the lack of malice or
criminal intent in the execution thereof. Moreover, if the version of grappling for the gun were to be
believed, there should have been nitrates on both hands of Grace, as examined by the NBI doctor who
conducted the post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the victim. Thus, these physical evidence,
the lack of powder burns or nitrates on the hands of Grace and the trajectory of the bullet that entered
her left thigh being slightly upwards and from left to right instead of downwards, repudiate
accusedappellant's claim of simple negligence.
3) Yes, but with mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The prosecution has sufficiently
established the elements of parricide by its evidence. These elements are: (1) the death of the deceased;
(2) that she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused (Article 246). The first and third elements were
stipulated during the pre-trial stage of the case, thus: the victim and the accused are legally married, and
that immediately after the shooting, the accused voluntarily and bodily carried the victim into a taxicab
and proceeded to the hospital where she died.” Further, accusedappellant having admitted that he shot
his wife, he has the burden of proof of establishing the presence of any circumstance which may relieve
him of responsibility.

10 People V Nepomuceno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 People V Nepomuceno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V. NEPOMUCENO, JR.

You might also like