Transcript
1 [ 2013. Crim2] CRIMINAL LAW 2 Prof. Ildefonso JimenezUP LAW – C2013 Art. 365: RECKLESS IMPRUDENCECALIMUTAN v. PEOPLE [482 SCRA 44]:difference between an intentional felony and a culpable felony.Throwing of a stone. PONENTE : CHICO-NAZARIO, J NATURE : petition for review on certiorari FACTS :Feb 4, 1996 – witness Rene L. Sañano was walking home with victimPHILIP CANTRE when Cantre saw Michael Bulalacao walking withpetitioner ROLLIE CALIMUTAN. Cantre then punched Bulalacao.Calimutan to defend Bulalacao threw a stone hitting the back of Cantre. Afterwards, they were pacified by the witness and went theirseparate ways - Cantre complained of back pains and afterwards died the nextday - Dr. Ulanday - did the initial autopsy and stated that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to food poisoning - Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez – conducted a separate autopsy andconcluded that Cantre died due to a ruptured spleen caused bythe trauma of the stoning19 November 1998 – RTC found Calimutan guilty of homicide - Ruled that the retaliatory act of throwing the stone at Cantrewas unlawful and as established by Mendez as the proximatecause of death, is guilty of the consequences of throwing thestone even if different from intended (RPC 4)29 August 2001 – CA sustained conviction as the autopsy conductedby Ulanday cannot be given more credence than the autopsyconducted by Mendez ISSUES: (1) WON the throwing of the stone was the proximate cause of death as found by Mendez‘ autopsy (2) WON Calimutan is guilty of homicide HELD: (1) YES RATIO: - The autopsy report conducted by Ulanday was lacking comparedto the extensive autopsy conducted by Mendez This was even testified by Ulanday who only found thatthe food poisoning MAY have been the cause of cardiacarrest and should be investigated more. - Spleen is a fragile organ -> stoning was proximate cause Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which,in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by anyefficient intervening cause, produces the injury, andwithout which the resul t would not have occurred.‖ (2) NO RATIO: 2 [ 2013. Crim2] - Court finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubtof the culpable felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code . It wasnot established by prosecution that Calimutan had thespecific intent of killing Cantre Only a chance encounter victim Cantre was the initial aggressor. victim Cantre was considerably older and bigger,at 26 years of age and with a height of five feetand nine inches, compared to Bulalacao, the boyhe attacked, who was only 15 years old andstood at about five feet throwing stone at back does not immediately equate totreachery, he only threw the stone rashly andimpulsively - Only guilty of inexcusable lack of precaution. Did not consider the amount of injury the stoning wouldcause Is civilly liable for the death. HEDY GAN y YU v. CA and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. [G.R. No. L-44264 (Sept. 19, 1988)] PONENTE: Fernan, C.J. NATURE: Appeal for complete reversal of the judgment by the trialcourt FACTS: Petitioner was driving along North Bay Blvd., Tondo, Manila.In the opposite direction were two oncoming cars, one tryingto overtake the other, encroaching the lane of the accused.To avoid a head-on collision, Yu swerved to the right, hittingan old man who was about to cross the street. The old manwas pinned between her car and the rear end of a parked jeep that, in turn, moved, hitting the truck parked in front of it. The old man was rushed to the hospital but pronounceddead on arrival. An information for Homicide through Reckless Imprudencewas filed, pleaded not guilty. Trial court rendered judgment finding petitioner guiltybeyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the CA found the petitioner guilty of Homicidethrough Simple Imprudence. ISSUE(s): W/N petitioner is guilty of reckless imprudence. HELD: NO RATIO: The SC believed that the ―emergency rule‖ is applicable in this case. The petitioner/accused had no time to rationalizethe situation because the car coming from the oppositedirection suddenly overtook the other. There was only enough time for her to ―heed the very powerful instinct of self- preservation‖. Yu cannot be considered negligent in this case. Yu is acquitted and her civil liability is waived (by choice of the heirs of the victim). 3 [ 2013. Crim2] PEOPLE VS AGLIDAY [367 SCRA 273] Ponente: Panganiban Nature: Reckless imprudence FACTS ◦ The accused quarreled with his wife over her working as alaundrywoman and his drinking habits. The son, Richard,interfered and and for that reason, the father got hisshotgun and shot his son. ◦ The medico-legal officer found a gunshot wound in thebuttock of the victim (richard). The son died in theemergency room. ◦ Father interposed the defense that he was cleaning his gunat the time and he accidentally squeezed the trigger and thegun fired. Because of the freak accident, his son was hitwhile he was about to go upstairs. ◦ The lower court gave credence to the prosecution's versionand convicted the father with parricide. ISSUE ◦ Whether the facts point to accident, recklessimprudence, or parricideHELD ◦ The appeal has no merit ◦ convicted of parricideRATIO ◦ no accident because from the declarations of his wifeand son, he purposely shot his son. Accidentpresupposes doing a lawful act with due care. Their wasno lawful act because the testimonies point that he wasnot holding his gun because he was cleaning it, butbecause he actually intended to shoot his son. Their wasno cleaning of the gun. During the fight where the sontried to pacify him, he actually went to the room toretrieve the gun. ◦ An accident is an occurrence that happens outside thesway of our will, and although it comes about throughsome act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.‖It connotes the absence of criminal intent. ◦ The shotgun was the type which required it to be cockedbefore firing. The act of cocking the gun and aiming it infront of his son shows the intent to fire it. It cannot beaccident and it cannot be reckless imprudence if the sonwas shot immediately afterwards. Imprudence andaccident neccesitate criminal intent. In cocking andaiming, intent was proved. ◦ In this case, resenting his son's meddling in hisargument with his wife, appellant purposely took his gunand shot his son RAMOS v. CA [321 SCRA 584] Ponente : Kapunan, J. Nature : Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA 4 [ 2013. Crim2] FACTS :Erlinda Ramos, a robust 47-year old woman was advised by Dr.Hosaka to undergo an operation to remove a stone in her gallbladder due to the discomfort she felt that somehow interfered withher normal ways.The scheduled operation would be on June 17, 1985 9 am atDLSMC. When asked for an anesthesiologist, Dr. Hosaka claimed hewould get a good one without giving a name. At around 7:30 am of June 17, she was prepared for the operationby the hospital staff. Her sister-in-law, Herminda Cruz, Dean of theCollege of Nursing of Capitol Medical Center, was there and wasallowed to be in the operating room to give moral support. Cruz sawtwo or three nurses and Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez, another defendant,who was to administer the anesthesia. By 9:30 am, Dr. Hosaka wasstill not around. He got there at almost 12 noon and then by 12:15,final preparations for the operation began.They had problems intubating the patient and Dr. Gutierrez noticedthat the patient's tummy was getting bloated and that her nailbedshad a bluish discoloration. Dr. Hosaka then called for anotheranesthesiologist, Dr. Calderon.The patient was placed in a tredelenburg position - a position wherethe head of the patient is placed in a position lower than her feetwhich is an indication that there is a decrease of blood supply to the patient‘s brain. Rogelio Ramos who was outside of the operating room then saw arespiratory machine being rushed into the O.R. At almost 3 pm of that day, the patient was taken to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).Erlinda stayed at the ICU for a month. Four months later, the patientwas released from the hospital. She has been brain damaged eversince, and comatose.Petitioners then filed a civil case for damages on January 1986.Petitioners proved that the damage sustained by Erlinda was due tolack of oxygen in her brain caused by the faulty management of herairway by private respondents during the anesthesia phase. Respondents claimed that the damage was Erlinda‘s allergic reaction to the anesthetic agent, Thiopental Sodium (Penthonal). RTC ruled infavor of the petitioners.CA overturned the decision hence thisappeal.Issue: WON the surgeon, the anesthesiologist and the hospitalshould be made liable for the unfortunate comatose condition of apatient scheduled for cholecystectomy (surgical excision of the gallbladder) HELD : Yes RATIO : The Supreme Court disagrees with the CA. Dr. Gutierrez was negligent . Witness Cruz, although not ananesthesiologist, is capable of observing the acts of the physicianand surgeon, external appearances, and manifest conditions whichare observable by any one. Res ipsa loquitor allows this where the
