07 PEOPLE vs.

VILLACORTA RULING:
G.R. No. 186412. September 7, 2011.
TOPIC: WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT THAN THAT INTENDED The proximate cause of Cruz ’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab
wound.
DOCTRINE:  Proximate cause has been defined as “that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
EMERGENCY RECIT: injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
 In this case, immediately after he was stabbed by Villacorta in the early morning
FACTS: of January 23, 2002, Cruz was rushed to and treated as an out-patient at the
 Accused Orlito Villacorta was charged with MURDER. Tondo Medical Center. On February 14, 2002, Cruz was admitted to the San
Lazaro Hospital for symptoms of severe tetanus infection, where he died the
VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION following day, on February 15, 2002.
 The Information stated that the accused, armed with a sharpened bamboo stick,  The prosecution did not present evidence of the emergency medical treatment
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, stabbed with the said Cruz received at the Tondo Medical Center, subsequent visits by Cruz to Tondo
weapon one DANILO SALVADOR CRUZ, thereby inflicting upon the victim Medical Center or any other hospital for follow-up medical treatment of his stab
serious wounds which caused his immediate death. wound, or Cruz’s activities between January 23 to February 14, 2002.
 During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Cristina Mendeja (Mendeja)  The Court cited Urbano vs. IAC, where it discussed the nature of tetanus:
and Dr. Domingo Belandres, Jr. (Dr. Belandres). “The incubation period of tetanus, i.e., the time between injury and the
 Mendeja narrated that on January 23, 2002, she was tending her sari-sari store appearance of unmistakable symptoms, ranges from 2 to 56 days. However,
located at C-4 Road, Bagumbayan, Navotas. Both Cruz and Villacorta were over 80 percent of patients become symptomatic within 14 days. A short
regular customers at Mendeja’s store. At around two o’clock in the morning, incubation period indicates severe disease, and when symptoms occur
while Cruz was ordering bread at Mendeja’s store, Villacorta suddenly appeared within 2 or 3 days of injury the mortality rate approaches 100 percent…
and, without uttering a word, stabbed Cruz on the left side of Cruz’s body using Mild tetanus is characterized by an incubation period of at least 14 days
a sharpened bamboo stick. The bamboo stick broke and was left in Cruz’s body. and an onset time of more than 6 days...”
Immediately after the stabbing incident, Villacorta fled. Mendeja gave chase but  Therefore, medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man’s body
failed to catch Villacorta. When Mendeja returned to her store, she saw her depends on the incubation period of the disease.
neighbor Aron removing the broken bamboo stick from Cruz’s body. Mendeja  The Court also noted in Urbano vs. IAC:
and Aron then brought Cruz to Tondo Medical Center. “The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and
 Dr. Belandres, Head of the Tetanus Department at the San Lazaro Hospital, logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused.
testified that Cruz died of tetanus infection secondary to stab wound. (People v. Cardenas, supra) And since we are dealing with a criminal
conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim’s death must
VERSION OF THE DEFENSE convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt.
 Villacorta denied stabbing Cruz. Villacorta recounted that he was on his way  The Court also cited Manila Electric Co. v. Remoquillo, et al., where it ruled
home from work. Upon arriving home, Villacorta drank coffee then went outside that:
to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. When Villacorta was avout to leave the store, “A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such
Cruz put his arm around Villacorta’s shoulder. This prompted Villacorta to box remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the
Cruz, after which, Villacorta went home. Villacorta did not notice that Cruz got occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened
hurt. Villacorta only found out about Cruz’s death upon his arrest. between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive,
 RTC found Villacorta guilty of murder, qualified by treachery. CA affirmed. unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would
Hence, this appeal. not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed
 Villacorta argues that, he should only be held liable for slight physical in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition
injuries for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz since the proximate was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or
cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. defective condition sets into operation the instances, which result in injury
because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is
ISSUE: WON Villacorta be convicted only for slight physical injuries. (YES) the proximate cause.”
 We face doubts in the instant case that compel us to set aside the conviction of
Villacorta for murder. There had been an interval of 22 days between the date of
the stabbing and the date when Cruz was rushed to San Lazaro Hospital,
exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus infection. If Cruz acquired severe tetanus
infection from the stabbing, then the symptoms would have appeared a lot
sooner than 22 days later. As the Court noted in Urbano, severe tetanus infection
has a short incubation period, less than 14 days; and those that exhibit symptoms
with two to three days from the injury, have one hundred percent (100%)
mortality. Ultimately, we can only deduce that Cruz’s stab wound was merely
the remote cause, and its subsequent infection withtetanus might have been the
proximate cause of Cruz’s death The infection of Cruz’s stab wound by tetanus
was anefficient intervening cause later or between the time Cruz was stabbed to
the time of his death.
 However, Villacorta is not totally without criminal liability. Villacorta is guilty
of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code for the
stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz. Although the charge in the instant case is for
murder, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of slight physical injuries may be
made considering that the latter offense is necessarily included in the former
since the essential ingredients of slight physical injuries constitute and form part
of those constituting the offense of murder.
 We cannot hold Villacorta criminally liable for attempted or frustrated murder
because the prosecution was not able to establish Villacorta’s intent to kill. In
fact, the CA expressy observed the lack of evidence to prove such an intent
beyond reasonable doubt.
 The intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every
possible doubt as to the homicidal (or murderous) intent of the aggressor. The
onus probandi lies not on accused-appellant but on the prosecution. The
inference that the intent to kill existed should not be drawn in the absence of
circumstances sufficient to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. When such
intent is lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime is not frustrated murder
but physical injuries only.