people vs carmen

7/27/2019 People vs Carmen

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-vs-carmen 1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001

THE PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.EUTI!UI" C"RMEN # Mo$h%r P%r&%$'a(a, CELEDONI" ")IE # I*a+%( a+%, DELI" SI)ONG" #D%-/ S+o/a, "LE"NDER SI)ONG" # Noo S+o/a, a- REN"RIO NUE4 # R% N'5%, accused-appellants.

MENDO4", J .

This is an appeal from the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cebu Cit, finding accused-appellants !uti"uia Carmen # Mother Perpetuala, Celedonia $abie # %sabel $abie, &elia 'ibonga #&eding 'ibonga, (le)ander 'ibonga # *ono 'ibonga, and Renario *u+e # Re *u+e guilt of murderand sentencing them to suffer the penalt of reclusion perpetua and to pa the heirs of the victim the amount

of P,. as indemnit as /ell as the costs.

The information0 against accused-appellants alleged

That on or about the 02th da of 3anuar, 12 at about 0 o5cloc6 p.m., in the Cit of Cebu,Philippines, and /ithin the 7urisdiction of this 8onorable Court, the said accused, conniving andconfederating together and mutuall helping one another, /ith deliberate intent, /ith intent to 6ill,/ith treacher and evident premeditation, did then and there inflict fatal phsical in7uries on oneRand 9untaao /hich in7uries caused the death of the said Rand 9untaao.

(ccused-appellants pleaded not guilt to the charge, /hereupon the /ere tried.

The prosecution presented evidence sho/ing the follo/ing (t around 0 o5cloc6 in the afternoon of 3anuar02, 12, 8one $e (bella, 1, and her friend $rances Claire Rivera, 2, /ere plaing ta6an in front of thehouse of one Bebing 9astimoso in :uiot, Pardo, Cebu Cit, /hen suddenl the heard a child shout,;Tabang ma<; =;8elp mother<;>. The cr came from the direction of the house of accused-appellant Carmen,/ho is also 6no/n in their neighborhood as Mother Perpetuala. The t/o children ran to/ards MotherPerpetuala5s house.? @hat 8one $e sa/ on /hich she testified in court, is summaried in the decision ofthe trial court, to /it

@hile thereA, she sa/ a bo, /hose name . . . she Alater came to 6no/ as one Rand 9untaao, . .. being immersed head first in a drum of /ater. (ccused (le)ander 'ibonga /as holding the /aistof the bod /hile accused Renario *u+e held the hands of the bo at the bac6. (ccused !uti"uiaCarmen, &elia 'ibonga, and Celedonia $abie /ere pushing do/n the bo5s head into the /ater.'he heard the bo shouting ;Ma, help; for t/o times. 9ater, she sa/ accused Renario or Re*u+e tie the bo on the bench /ith a green rope as big as her little finger. . . . (fter that !uti"uiaCarmen poured A/ater from a plastic container =galon> . . . into the mouth of the bo. !ach time thebo struggled to raise his head, accused (le)ander 'ibonga banged the bo5s head against the

bench Ato /hich the bo /as tied do/n. 'he even heard the banging sound evertime the bo5shead hit the bench. $or about five times she heard it. (ccording to this /itness after forcing the boto drin6 /ater, !uti"uia Carmen and accused Celedonia $abie alias %sabel $abie too6 turns inpounding the bo5s chest /ith their clenched fists. (ll the time Re *u+e held do/n the bo5s feetto the bench. 'he also /itnessed . . . Celedonia $abie dropped her /eight, buttoc6s first, on thebod of the bo. 9ater on, !uti"uia Carmen ordered &elia or &eding 'ibonga to get a 6nife from the6itchen. !uti"uia Carmen then slo/l plunged the stainless 6nife on the left side of the bo5s bodand /ith the use of a plastic gallon container, the top portion of /hich /as cut out, !uti"uia CarmenAcaught the blood dripping from the left side of the bo5s bod. 8one $e heard the moaningcoming from the tortured bo. Much later she sa/ *ono or (le)ander 'ibonga, Renario *u+e,&elia 'ibonga, Celedonia $abie, and !uti"uia Carmen carr the bo into the house.4



!ddie 9untaao, father of the victim, testified that he has five children, the eldest of /hom, Rand, /as 1?ears old at the time of the incident. n *ovember 0, 1D, Rand had a ;nervous brea6do/n; /hich!ddie thought /as due to Rand having to s6ip meals /henever he too6 the bo /ith him to the farm.

(ccording to !ddie, his son started tal6ing to himself and laughing. n 3anuar 0D, 12, upon thesuggestion of accused-appellant Renario *u+e, !ddie and his /ife Perlita and their three children =Rand,3esrel, 2, and 9esl, 1> /ent /ith accused-appellant *u+e to Cebu. The arrived in Cebu at around 1o5cloc6 in the afternoon of the same da and spent the night in *u+e5s house in Tang6e, Talisa.

The follo/ing da, the /ent to the house of accused-appellant Carmen in :uiot, Pardo, /here all of theaccused-appellants /ere present. !ddie tal6ed to accused-appellant Carmen regarding his son5s condition.8e /as told that the bo /as possessed b a ;bad spirit,; /hich accused-appellant Carmen said she coulde)orcise. 'he /arned, ho/ever, that as the spirit might transfer to !ddie, it /as best to conduct the healingpraer /ithout him. (ccused-appellants then led Rand out of the house, /hile !ddie and his /ife and t/odaughters /ere loc6ed inside a room in the house.D

(fter a /hile, !ddie heard his son t/ice shout ;Ma, tabang <; =;Mother, help<;>. !ddie tried to go out of theroom to find out /hat /as happening to his son, but the door /as loc6ed. (fter about an hour, the 9untaaos/ere transferred to the praer room /hich /as located near the main door of the house.2

( fe/ hours later, at around o5cloc6 in the afternoon, accused-appellants carried Rand into the praerroom and placed him on the altar. !ddie /as shoc6ed b /hat he sa/. Rand5s face /as bluish and

contused, /hile his tongue /as stic6ing out of his mouth. %t /as clear to !ddie that his son /as alreaddead. 8e /anted to see his son5s bod, but he /as stopped from doing so b accused-appellant !uti"uiaCarmen /ho told him not to go near his son because the latter /ould be resurrected at 2 o5cloc6 thatevening.E

(fter 2 o5cloc6 that evening, accused-appellant Carmen as6ed a member of her group to call the funeralparlor and bring a coffin as the child /as alread dead. %t /as arranged that the bod /ould be transferred tothe house of accused-appellant *u+e. Thus, that night, the 9untaao famil, accompanied b accused-appellant *u+e, too6 Rand5s bod to *une5s house in Tang6e, Talisa. The follo/ing da, 3anuar 0E,12, accused-appellant *u+e told !ddie to go /ith him to the Talisa Municipal 8ealth ffice to reportRand5s death and told him to 6eep "uiet or the might not be able to get the necessar papers for his son5sburial. *u+e too6 care of securing the death certificate /hich !ddie signed.

(t around ? o5cloc6 in the afternoon of 3anuar 0E, 12, accused-appellant Carmen /ent to Tang6e,

Talisa to ensure that the bod /as buried. !ddie and his /ife told her that the preferred to bring their son5sbod /ith them to 'i6atuna, %sabela, *egros ccidental but the /ere told b accused-appellant Carmenthat this /as not possible as she and the other accused-appellants might be arrested. That same afternoon,Rand 9untaao /as buried in Tang6e, Talisa.1

(fter !ddie and his famil had returned home to *egros ccidental, !ddie sought assistance from theBombo Rado station in Bacolod Cit /hich referred him to the regional office of the *ational Bureau of%nvestigation =*B%> in the cit. n $ebruar ?, 12, !ddie filed a complaint for murder against accused-appellant *u+e and the other members of his group.11 8e also as6ed for the e)humation and autops of theremains of his son.10 (s the incident too6 place in Cebu, his complaint /as referred to the *B% office in CebuCit.

Modesto Ca7ita, head of *B%, Region F%% =Cebu>, too6 over the investigation of the case. 8e testified that hemet /ith !ddie 9untaao and supervised the e)humation and autops of the bod of Rand 9untaao.1?

Ca7ita testified that he also met /ith accused-appellant Carmen and after admitting that she and the otheraccused-appellants conducted a ;pra-over healing; session on the victim on 3anuar 02, 12, accused-appellant Carmen refused to give an further statement. Ca7ita noticed a /ooden bench in the 6itchen ofCarmen5s house, /hich, /ith Carmen5s permission, he too6 /ith him to the *B% office for e)amination. Ca7itaadmitted he did not 6no/ the results of the e)amination.14

&r. Ronaldo B. Mende, the *B% medico-legal officer /ho conducted the autops on Rand 9untaao,testified that he, the victim5s father, and some *B% agents, e)humed the victim5s bod on $ebruar 0, 12at Tang6e Catholic Cemeter in the Tang6e, Talisa, Cebu. 8e conducted the autops on the same da andlater submitted the follo/ing report =!)hs. ! and $>1



$%*&%*G'

Bod in advanced stage of decomposition /earing a /hite shirt and shorts /rapped in printedblan6et =/hite and orange> placed in /hite /ooden coffin and buried underground about 4 feetdeep.

Contusion, ?. ) 4. cms. chest, anterior, left side.

$racture, ?rd rib, left, mid-clavicular line.

$racture, linear, occipital bone right side e)tending to the bases of middle cranial fossaeright to left do/n to the occipital bone, left side.

$racture, diastatic, lamboidal suture, bilateral.

%nternal organs in advanced stage of decomposition.

Cranial vault almost empt.

C(H'! $ &!(T8 AThe victim could have died due to the internal effects of a traumatic headin7ur andIor traumatic chest in7ur.

&r. Mende testified that the contusion on the victim5s chest /as caused b contact /ith a hard bluntinstrument. 8e added that the fracture on the rib /as complete /hile that found on the base of the s6ullfollo/ed a serrated or uneven pattern. 8e said that the latter in7ur could have been caused b the forciblecontact of that part of the bod /ith a blunt ob7ect such as a /ooden bench.1D

n cross-e)amination, &r. Mende admitted that he did not find an stab /ound on the victim5s bod bute)plained that this could be due to the fact that at the time the bod /as e)humed and e)amined, it /asalread in an advanced state of decomposition rendering such /ound, if present, unrecogniable.12

(ccused-appellants did not testif. %nstead, the defense presented =a> Ritsel Blase, an alleged ee/itnessto the incidentJ =b> Maria 9ilina 3imene, Fisitacion 'eniega, and 3osefina (bing, alleged former ;patients; of

accused-appellant CarmenJ =c> &r. Milagros Carloto, the municipal health officer of Talisa, Cebu andJ =d> (tt. 'alvador 'olima of the Cebu Cit Prosecutor5s ffice.

Ritsel Blase, 01, testified that since 1E2 she had been /ith the group of accused-appellant Carmen, /homshe calls Mother Perpetuala. 'he recounted that at around 0 o5cloc6 in the afternoon of 3anuar 02, 12,/hile she /as in the house of accused-appellant Carmen, she sa/ !ddie 9untaao tal6ing /ith the latterregarding the treatment of his son. The bo /as later led to the 6itchen and given a bath prior to ;treatment.;

(fter /ater /as poured on the bo, he became unrul prompting accused-appellant Carmen to decide not tocontinue /ith the ;treatment,; but the bo5s parents allegedl prevailed upon her to continue. (s the bocontinued to resist, accused-appellant Carmen told accused-appellants &elia 'ibonga and Celedonia $abieto help her =Carmen> la the bo on a bench. (s the child resisted all the more, !ddie 9untaao allegedltold the group to tie the bo to the bench. (ccused-appellant &elia 'ibonga got hold of a nlon rope /hich/as used to tie the child to the bench. Then Carmen, &elia 'ibonga, and $abie praed over the child, but asthe latter started hitting his head against the bench, Carmen as6ed *u+e to place his hands under the

bo5s head to cushion the impact of the blo/ evertime the child brought do/n his head. To stop the bofrom struggling, accused-appellant $abie held the bo5s legs, /hile accused-appellant *u+e held hisshoulders. (fter praing over the bo, the latter /as released and carried inside the house. (ccused-appellant (le)ander 'ibonga, /ho had arrived, helped carr the bo inside. (fter this, Blase said she nolonger 6ne/ /hat happened inside the house as she staed outside to finish the laundr.1E

Blase testified that the parents of Rand 9untaao /itnessed the ;pra-over; of their son from beginning toend. 'he denied that accused-appellants $abie and &elia 'ibonga struc6 the victim on his chest /ith theirfists. (ccording to her, neither did accused-appellant Carmen stab the bo. 'he claimed that Rand /as stillalive /hen he /as ta6en inside the house.1



The defense presented Maria 9ilia 3imene, 0, Fisitacion 'eniega, ?, and 3osefina (bing, ?, /hotestified that accused-appellant Carmen had cured them of their illnesses b merel praing over them and/ithout appling an form of phsical violence on them.0

Milagros Carloto, Municipal 8ealth fficer of Talisa, Cebu, /as also presented b the defense to testif onthe death certificate she issued in /hich she indicated that Rand 9untaao died of pneumonia. (ccording toher, !ddie 9untaao came to her office on 3anuar 0E, 12 to as6 for the issuance of a death certificate for

his son Rand 9untaao /ho had allegedl suffered from cough and fever.01

n cross-e)amination, &r. Carloto admitted that she never sa/ the bod of the victim as she merel reliedon /hat she had been told b !ddie 9untaao. 'he said that it /as a mid/ife, Mrs. Revina 9aviosa, /hoe)amined the victim5s bod.00

The last /itness for the defense, (ssistant Cit Prosecutor 'alvador 'olima, /as presented to identif theresolution he had prepared =!)h. E>0? on the re-investigation of the case in /hich he recommended thedismissal of the charge against accused-appellants. 8is testimon /as dispensed /ith, ho/ever, as theprosecution stipulated on the matters 'olima /as going to testif /ith the "ualification that 'olima5srecommendation /as disapproved b Cit Prosecutor Primo Miro.04

The prosecution recalled !ddie 9untaao to the stand to rebut the testimonies of Ritsel Blase and &r.Milagros Carloto. !ddie denied having /itnessed /hat accused-appellants did to his son. 8e reiterated hisearlier claim that after accused-appellants had ta6en Rand, he and his /ife and t/o daughters /ere loc6edinside a room. 8e disputed Blase5s statement that his son /as still alive /hen he /as brought into thepraer room. 8e said he sa/ that his son5s head slumped /hile being carried b accused-appellants.0

(s for the testimon of &r. Carloto, !ddie admitted having tal6ed /ith her /hen he and accused-appellant*u+e /ent to her office on 3anuar 0E, 12. 8o/ever, he denied having told her that his son /assuffering from fever and cough as he told her that Rand had a nervous brea6do/n. 8e too6 e)ception to&r. Carloto5s statement that he /as alone /hen he /ent to her office because it /as *u+e /ho insistedthat he =!ddie> accompan him in order to secure the death certificate.0D

n *ovember 1E, 1E, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of /hich states

@8!R!$R!, in vie/ of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Athe accused are all found guilt

beond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are hereb Asentenced to suffer the penalt ofR!C9H'%* P!RP!TH(, /ith the accessor penalties of the la/J to indemnif 7ointl andseverall the heirs of the deceased Rand 9untaao in the sum of P,.J and to pa thecosts. The accused, are, ho/ever, credited in full during the /hole period of their detentionprovided the /ill signif in /riting that the /ill abide b all the rules and regulations of thepenitentiar.02

%n finding accused-appellants guilt of murder, the trial court stated

Killing a person /ith treacher is murder even if there is no intent to 6ill. @hen death occurs, it ispresumed to be the natural conse"uence of phsical in7uries inflicted. 'ince the defendant didcommit the crime /ith treacher, he is guilt of murder, because of the voluntar presence of the"ualifing circumstance of treacher =P v. Cagoco, E Phil. ?>. (ll the accused in the case at barhad contributed different acts in mercilessl inflicting in7uries to the victim. $or having immersed the

head of the victim into the barrel of /ater, all the herein accused should be held responsible for allthe conse"uences even if the result be different from that /hich /as intended =(rt. 4, par. 1, RPC>.%t is pointed out that in P. v. Cagoco, E Phil. 04, even if there /as no intent to 6illA, in inflictingphsical in7uries /ith treacher, the accused in that case /as convicted of murder. %n murder"ualified b treacher, it is re"uired onl that there is treacher in the attac6, and this is true even ifthe offender has no intent to 6ill the person assaulted. Hnder the guise of a ritual or treatment, theaccused should not have intentionall immersed upside do/n the head of Rand 9untaao into abarrel of /aterJ banged his head against the benchJ pounded his chest /ith fists, or plunged a6itchen 6nife to his side so that blood /ould come out for these acts /ould surel cause death tothe victim. . . .



ne /ho commits an intentional felon is responsible for all the conse"uences /hich ma naturalland logicall result therefrom, /hether foreseen or intended or not. rdinaril, /hen a personcommits a felon /ith malice, he intends the conse"uences of his felonious act. %n vie/ ofparagraph 1 of (rt. 4, a person committing a felon is criminall liable although the conse"uencesof his felonious acts are not intended b him. . . .

. . . .

%ntent is presumed from the commission of an unla/ful act. The presumption of criminal intent maarise from the proof of the criminal act and it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. %n thecase at bar, there is enough evidence that the accused confederated /ith one another in inflictingphsical harm to the victim =an illegal act>. These acts /ere intentional, and the /rong doneresulted in the death of their victim. 8ence, the are liable for all the direct and naturalconse"uences of their unla/ful act, even if the ultimate result had not been intended.0E

8ence, this appeal. (ccused-appellants allege that the trial court erred in convicting them of murder.0

First . %t /ould appear that accused-appellants are members of a cult and that the biarre ritual performedover the victim /as consented to b the victim5s parents. @ith the permission of the victim5s parents,accused-appellant Carmen, together /ith the other accused-appellants, proceeded to sub7ect the bo to a;treatment; calculated to drive the ;bad spirit; from the bo5s bod. Hnfortunatel, the strange procedureresulted in the death of the bo. Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to 6ill the bo. Their liabilitarises from their rec6less imprudence because the ought that to 6no/ their actions /ould not bring aboutthe cure. The are, therefore, guilt of rec6less imprudence resulting in homicide and not of murder.

(rt. ?D of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that rec6less imprudence consists in voluntaril,but /ithout malice, doing or failing to do an act from /hich material damage results b reason of ine)cusablelac6 of precaution on the part of the person performing such act. Compared to intentional felonies, such ashomicide or murder, /hat ta6es the place of the element of malice or intention to commit a /rong or evil isthe failure of the offender to ta6e precautions due to lac6 of s6ill ta6ing into account his emploment, oroccupation, degree of intelligence, phsical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time, andplace.

The elements of rec6less imprudence are apparent in the acts done b accused-appellants /hich, becauseof their lac6 of medical s6ill in treating the victim of his alleged ailment, resulted in the latter5s death. (s

alread stated, accused-appellants, none of /hom is a medical practitioner, belong to a religious group,6no/n as the Missionaries of ur 9ad of $atima, /hich is engaged in faith healing.

%n United States v. Divino,? the accused, /ho /as not a licensed phsician, in an attempt to cure the victimof ulcers in her feet, /rapped a piece of clothing /hich had been soa6ed in petroleum around the victim5sfeet and then lighted the clothing, thereb causing in7uries to the victim. The Court held the accused liablefor rec6less imprudence resulting in phsical in7uries. %t /as noted that the accused had no intention tocause an evil but rather to remed the victim5s ailment.

%n another case, People v. Vda. de Golez ,?1 the Court ruled that the proper charge to file against a non-medical practitioner, /ho had treated the victim despite the fact that she did not possess the necessartechnical 6no/ledge or s6ill to do so and caused the latter5s death, /as homicide through rec6lessimprudence.

The trial court5s reliance on the rule that criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unla/ful actis untenable because such presumption onl holds in the absence of proof to the contrar.?0 The facts of thecase indubitabl sho/ the absence of intent to 6ill on the part of the accused-appellants. %ndeed, the trialcourt5s findings can be sustained onl if the circumstances of the case are ignored and the Court limits itselfto the time /hen accused-appellants undertoo6 their unauthoried ;treatment; of the victim. bviousl, suchan evaluation of the case cannot be allo/ed.

Conse"uentl, treacher cannot be appreciated for in the absence of intent to 6ill, there is no treacher orthe deliberate emploment of means, methods, and manner of e)ecution to ensure the safet of the accusedfrom the defensive or retaliator attac6s coming from the victim.?? Fie/ed in this light, the acts /hich the trial



court sa/ as manifestations of treacher in fact relate to efforts b accused-appellants to restrain Rand9untaao so that the can effect the cure on him.

n the other hand, there is no merit in accused-appellants5 contention that the testimon of prosecutionee/itness 8one $e (bella is not credible. The Court is more than convinced of 8one $e5s credibilit. 8ertestimon is clear, straightfor/ard, and is far from having been coached or contrived. 'he /as onl a fe/meters a/a from the 6itchen /here accused-appellants conducted their ;pra-over; healing session not to

mention that she had a good vantage point as the 6itchen had no roof nor /alls but onl a pantr. 8ertestimon /as corroborated b the autops findings of &r. Mende /ho, consistent /ith 8one $e5stestimon, noted fractures on the third left rib and on the base of the victim5s s6ull. @ith regard to &r.Mende5s failure to find an stab /ound in the victim5s bod, he himself had e)plained that such could bedue to the fact that at the time the autops /as conducted, the cadaver /as alread in an advanced state ofdecomposition. Rand 9untaao5s cadaver /as e)humed 04 das after it had been buried. Considering thelength of time /hich had elapsed and the fact that the cadaver had not been embalmed, it /as ver li6elthat the soft tissues had so decomposed that, as &r. Mende said, it /as no longer possible to determine/hether there /as a stab /ound. (s for the other points raised b accused-appellants to detract thecredibilit of 8one $e5s testimon, the same appear to be onl minor and trivial at best.

(ccused-appellants contend that the failure of the prosecution to present the testimon of $rances ClaireRivera as /ell as the 6nife used in stabbing Rand 9untaao puts in doubt the prosecution5s evidence. @edo not thin6 so. The presentation of the 6nife in evidence is not indispensable.?4

$inall, accused-appellants ma6e much of the fact that although the case /as tried under 3udge Renato C.&acudao, the decision /as rendered b 3udge Galicano (rriesgado /ho too6 over the case after theprosecution and the defense had rested their cases.? 8o/ever, the fact that the 7udge /ho /rote thedecision did not hear the testimonies of the /itnesses does not ma6e him less competent to render adecision, since his ruling is based on the records of the case and the transcript of stenographic notes of thetestimonies of the /itnesses.?D

Second . The "uestion no/ is /hether accused-appellants can be held liable for rec6less imprudenceresulting in homicide, considering that the information charges them /ith murder. @e hold that the can.

Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent parts

'!C. 4. Judgment in case o variance bet!een allegation and proo . @hen there is variance

bet/een the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense ascharged is included in or necessaril includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted ofthe offense proved /hich is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged /hich isincluded in the offense proved.

'!C. . "#en an oense includes or is included in anot#er . (n offense charged necessarilincludes the offense proved /hen some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, asalleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. (nd an offense charged is necessarilincluded in the offense proved, /hen the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form partof those constituting the latter.

%n Samson v. $ourt o %ppeals,?2 the accused /ere charged /ith, and convicted of, estafa throughfalsification of public document. The Court of (ppeals modified the 7udgment and held one of the accusedliable for estafa through falsification b negligence. n appeal, it /as contended that the appeals court erred

in holding the accused liable for estafa through negligence because the information charged him /ith having/ilfull committed estafa. %n overruling this contention, the Court held

@hile a criminal negligent act is not a simple modalit of a /illful crime, as /e held in :uion v.3ustice of the Peace of Bacolor, G.R. *o. 9-DD41, 3ul 0E, 1, but a distinct crime in itself,designated as a "uasi offense in our Penal Code, it ma ho/ever be said that a conviction for theformer can be had under an information e)clusivel charging the commission of a /illful offense,upon the theor that the greater includes the lesser offense. This is the situation that obtains in thepresent case. (ppellant /as charged /ith /illful falsification but from the evidence submitted b theparties, the Court of (ppeals found that in effecting the falsification /hich made possible the



cashing of the chec6s in "uestion, appellant did not act /ith criminal intent but merel failed to ta6eproper and ade"uate means to assure himself of the identit of the real claimants as an ordinarprudent man /ould do. %n other /ords, the information alleges acts /hich charge /illful falsificationbut /hich turned out to be not /illful but negligent. This is a case covered b the rule /hen there isa variance bet/een the allegation and proof. . . .

The fact that the information does not allege that the falsification /as committed /ith imprudence is

of no moment for here this deficienc appears supplied b the evidence submitted b appellanthimself and the result has proven beneficial to him. Certainl, having alleged that the falsificationhas been /illful, it /ould be incongruous to allege at the same time that it /as committed /ithimprudence for a charge of criminal intent is incompatible /ith the concept of negligence.

%n People v. Fernando,?E the accused /as charged /ith, and convicted of, murder b the trial court. nappeal, this Court modified the 7udgment and held the accused liable for rec6less imprudence resulting inhomicide after finding that he did not act /ith criminal intent.

T#ird . Coming no/ to the imposable penalt, under (rt. ?D, rec6less imprudence resulting in homicide ispunishable b arresto ma&or in its ma)imum period to prision correccional in its medium period. %n this case,ta6ing into account the pertinent provisions of %ndeterminate 'entence 9a/, the accused-appellants shouldsuffer the penalt of four =4> months of arresto ma&or , as minimum, to four =4> ears and t/o =0> months of

prision correccional , as ma)imum.

(s to their civil liabilit, accused-appellants should pa the heirs of Rand 9untaao an indemnit in theamount of P,. and moral damages also in the amount of P,..? %n addition, the should pae)emplar damages in the amount of P?,. in vie/ of accused-appellants5 gross negligence inattempting to ;cure; the victim /ithout a license to practice medicine and to give an e)ample or correction forthe public good.4

@8!R!$R!, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cebu Cit, is ($$%RM!& /ith theM&%$%C(T%* that accused-appellants are hereb declared guilt of rec6less imprudence resulting inhomicide and are each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four =4> months of arresto ma&or ,as minimum, to four =4> ears and t/o =0> months of prision correccional , as ma)imum. %n addition, accused-appellants are R&!R!& 7ointl and severall to pa the heirs of Rand 9untaao indemnit in the amountof P,., moral damages in the amount of P,., and e)emplar damages in the amount ofP?,..

' R&!R!&.

'ellosillo, 'uena, and De (eon, Jr., JJ., concur )uisumbing, J., on leave.

oo$o$%*

1 Per 3udge Galicano *. (rriesgado.

0 Records, pp. 1-0.

? T'* =8one $e (bella>, pp. 10-1, &ec. 0?, 12.

4 &ecision, p. 0J Rollo, p. 12.

T'* =!ddie 9untaao>, pp. -2, 3an. 01, 1EJ T'* =Ronaldo Mende>, p. 1, 3an. 0, 1E.

D T'* =!ddie 9untaao>, pp. 2-E, 1, 3an. 01, 1EJ T'*, pp. 11-10, 3ul 02, 1E.



2 *d ., pp. E-J id ., pp. 1?-1.

E T'* =!ddie 9untaao>, pp. -1, 3an. 01, 1E.

T'* =!ddie 9untaao>, pp. 1-10, 3an. 01, 1E.

1

*d ., pp. 11-10.

11 T'* =!ddie 9untaao>, p. 10, 3an. 01, 1EJ !)h. %J Records, pp. 11-114.

10 !)h. CJ Records, p. 11-B.

1? T'* =Modesto Ca7ita>, pp. 4, 2-E, 0, $eb. ?, 1E.

14 *d ., pp. E-1, 14-1, 12.

1 Records, pp. 11-& and !.

1D T'* =Ronaldo Mende>, pp. 2, -1?, 3an. 0, 1E.

12 *d ., pp. 1, 1.

1E T'* =Ritsel Blase>, pp. ?-11, 00-0?, March ?, 1E.

1 *d ., pp. 1-11.

0 T'* =Maria 9ilia 3imene>, pp. 1-12J $eb. 02, 1EJ T'* =Fisitacion 'eniega>, pp. ?-, $eb. 02,1EJ and T'* =3osefina (bing>, pp. E-, $eb. 02, 1E.

01 T'* =Milagros Carloto>, pp. 4-, $eb. 0, 1E.

00 *d ., pp. 2-, 1-1E.

0? Records, pp. 42-4E.

04 T'* ='alvador 'olima>, pp. 0-?, 3ul 02, 1E.

0 T'* =!ddie 9untaao>, pp. 4-2, 3ul 02, 1E.

0D *d ., pp. 0-?.

02 &ecision, p. 1?J Rollo, p. 0E.

0E &ecision, pp. -11J Rollo, pp. 04-0D.

0 Rollo, p. D.

? 10 Phil. 12 =1E>.

?1 1E Phil. E =1D>.

?0 People v. 'ia Teb Ban, 4 Phil. 0 =10>.



?? 'ee People v. 'uplito, ?14 'CR( 4? =1>J People v. Gatchalian, ? 'CR( 1 =1E>.

?4 People v. &ela Cru, G.R. *o. 11ED2, 3ul 14, 0.

? (ppellants5 Brief, pp. 14-1J Rollo, pp. 2-21

?D

People v. Hloron, 0ED 'CR( 241 =1E>.

?2 1? Phil. 022 =1E>J Cabella v. 'andiganbaan, 12 'CR( 4 =11>.

?E 4 Phil. 2 =10D>.

? Civil Code, (rts. 00D=?> and 001=1>J 'ee People v. 'ilva, ?01 'CR( D42 =1>J People v.'ilvestre, ?2 'CR( D =1>.

4 Civil Code, (rts. 000 and 00?1J 'ee People v. Medroso, 3r., D0 'CR( 04 =12>.

The 9a/phil Pro7ect - (rellano 9a/ $oundation

people vs carmen

Documents