FILOMENO URBANO vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. G.R. No.

72964 Janua ! 7, "9## On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at Baran a! "nonan , #an Fabian, $an asinan located at abo%t 100 meters from the tobacco seedbed of &arcelo 'avier. (e fo%nd the place where he stored his pala! flooded with water comin from the irri ation canal nearb! which had overflowed. Urbano went to the elevated portion of the canal to see what happened and there he saw &arcelo 'avier and )milio )rfe c%ttin rass. (e as*ed them who was responsible for the openin of the irri ation canal and 'avier admitted that he was the one. Urbano then ot an r! and demanded that 'avier pa! for his soa*ed pala!. " +%arrel between them ens%ed. Urbano %nsheathed his bolo and hac*ed 'avier hittin him on the ri ht palm of his hand, which was %sed in parr!in the bolo hac*. 'avier who was then %narmed ran awa! from Urbano b%t was overta*en b! Urbano who hac*ed him a ain hittin 'avier on the left le with the bac* portion of said bolo, ca%sin a swellin on said le . ,hen Urbano tried to hac* and inflict f%rther in-%r!, his da% hter embraced and prevented him from hac*in 'avier. 'avier was treated later treated b! .r. &eneses b%t on /ovember 10, 19801or 22 da!s after1'avier was r%shed to the /a2areth 3eneral (ospital in a ver! serio%s condition. ,hen admitted to the hospital, 'avier had loc*-aw and was havin conv%lsions. .r. )dm%ndo )4conde who personall! attended to 'avier fo%nd that the latter5s serio%s condition was ca%sed b! tetan%s to4in. (e noticed the presence of a healin wo%nd in 'avier5s palm which co%ld have been infected b! tetan%s. 'avier died in the hospital. ISSUE$ ,hether or not there was an efficient intervenin ca%se from the time 'avier was wo%nded %ntil his death which wo%ld e4c%lpate Urbano from an! liabilit! for 'avier5s death. HELD$ $etition GRANTED. 6he case involves the application of "rticle 0 of the 7evised $enal 8ode which provides that 98riminal liabilit! shall be inc%rred: ;1< B! an! person committin a felon! ;delito< altho% h the wron f%l act done be different from that which he intended ...9 $%rs%ant to this provision 9an acc%sed is criminall! responsible for acts committed b! him in violation of law and for all the nat%ral and lo ical conse+%ences res%ltin therefrom.9 ;$eople v. 8ardenas, => #87" >31<. 6he record is clear that &arcelo 'avier was hac*ed b! the petitioner who %sed a bolo as a res%lt of which 'avier s%ffered a 2?inch incised wo%nd on his ri ht palm@ that on /ovember 10, 1981 which was the 22nd da! after the incident, 'avier was r%shed to the hospital in a ver! serio%s condition and that on the followin da!, /ovember 1=, 1981, he died from tetan%s. Under these circ%mstances, the lower co%rts r%led that 'avier5s death was the nat%ral and lo ical conse+%ence of Urbano5s %nlawf%l act. (ence, he was declared responsible for 'avier5s death. 6he petitioner reiterates his position that the pro4imate ca%se of the death of &arcelo 'avier was d%e to his own ne li ence, that .r. &ario &eneses fo%nd no tetan%s in the in-%r!, and that 'avier ot infected with tetan%s when after two wee*s he ret%rned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with his bare hands e4posin the wo%nd to harmf%l elements li*e tetan%s erms. 6he evidence on record does not clearl! show that the wo%nd inflicted b! Urbano was infected with tetan%s at the time of the infliction of the wo%nd. 6he evidence merel! confirms that the wo%nd, which was alread! healin at the time 'avier s%ffered the s!mptoms of the fatal ailment, somehow ot infected with tetan%s (owever, as to when the wo%nd was infected is not clear from the record. An Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina ;102 $hil. 1181<, we adopted the followin definition of pro4imate ca%se: ... 9that ca%se, which, in nat%ral and contin%o%s se+%ence, %nbro*en b! an! efficient intervenin ca%se, prod%ces the in-%r!, and witho%t which the res%lt wo%ld not have occ%rred.9"nd more comprehensivel!, 9the pro4imate le al ca%se is that actin first and prod%cin the in-%r!, either immediatel! or b! settin other events in motion, all constit%tin a nat%ral and contin%o%s chain of events, each havin a close ca%sal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediatel! effectin the in-%r! as a nat%ral and probable res%lt of the ca%se which first acted, %nder s%ch circ%mstances that the person responsible for the first event sho%ld, as an ordinaril! pr%dent and intelli ent person, have reasonable ro%nd to e4pect at the moment of his act or defa%lt that an in-%r! to some person mi ht probabl! res%lt therefrom.9 ;at pp. 18=?18>< ,e loo* into the nat%re of tetan%s? 6he incubation period of tetanus, i.e., the time between injury and the appearance of unmistakable symptoms, ranges from 2 to 5 days. !owever, over "# percent of patients become symptomatic within $% days. & short incubation period indicates severe disease, and when symptoms occur within 2 or ' days of injury the mortality rate approaches $## percent . 6herefore, medicall! spea*in , the reaction to tetan%s fo%nd inside a man5s bod! depends on the inc%bation period of the disease. An the case at bar, 'avier s%ffered a 2?inch incised wo%nd on his ri ht palm when he parried the bolo which Urbano %sed in hac*in him. 6his incident too* place on October 23, 1980. "fter 22 da!s, or on /ovember 10, 1980, he s%ffered the s!mptoms of tetan%s, li*e loc*-aw and m%scle spasms. 6he followin da!, /ovember 1=, 1980, he died. Af, therefore, the wo%nd of 'avier inflicted b! the appellant was alread! infected b! tetan%s erms at the time, it is more medicall! probable that 'avier sho%ld have been infected with onl! a mild ca%se of tetan%s beca%se the s!mptoms of tetan%s appeared on the 22nd da! after the hac*in incident or more than $% days after the infliction of the wo%nd. 6herefore, the onset time should have been more than si( days . 'avier, however, died on the second da! from the onset time . 6he more credible concl%sion is that at the time 'avier5s wo%nd was inflicted b! the appellant, the severe form of

tetan%s that *illed him was not !et present. 8onse+%entl!, 'avier5s wo%nd co%ld have been infected with tetan%s after the hac*in incident. 8onsiderin the circ%mstance s%rro%ndin 'avier5s death, his wo%nd co%ld have been infected b! tetan%s 2 or 3 or a few b%t not 20 to 22 da!s before he died. 6he r%le is that the death of the victim m%st be the direct, natural, and logical conse)uence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused . ;$eople v. 8ardenas, s%pra< "nd since we are dealin with a criminal conviction, the proof that the acc%sed ca%sed the victim5s death m%st convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. 6he medical findin s, however, lead %s to a distinct possibilit! that the infection of the wo%nd b! tetan%s was an efficient intervenin ca%se later or between the time 'avier was wo%nded to the time of his death. 6he infection was, therefore, distinct and forei n to the crime. ;$eople v. 7ellin, BB $hil. 1038<. .o%bts are present. 6here is a li*elihood that the wo%nd was b%t the remote ca%se and its s%bse+%ent infection, for fail%re to ta*e necessar! preca%tions, with tetan%s ma! have been the pro(imate ca%se of 'avier5s death with which the petitioner had nothin to do. "s we r%led in Manila *lectric +o. v. ,emo)uillo, et al. ;99 $hil. 118<. 9" prior and remote ca%se cannot be made the be of an action if s%ch remote ca%se did nothin more than f%rnish the condition or ive rise to the occasion b! which the in-%r! was made possible, if there intervened between s%ch prior or remote ca%se and the in-%r! a distinct, s%ccessive, %nrelated, and efficient ca%se of the in-%r!, even tho% h s%ch in-%r! wo%ld not have happened b%t for s%ch condition or occasion. Af no dan er e4isted in the condition e4cept beca%se of the independent ca%se, s%ch condition was not the pro4imate ca%se. "nd if an independent ne li ent act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which res%lt in in-%r! beca%se of the prior defective condition, s%ch s%bse+%ent act or condition is the pro4imate ca%se.9 ;0= 8.'. pp. 931?932<. ;at p. 12=< At strains the -%dicial mind to allow a clear a ressor to o scot free of criminal liabilit!. "t the ver! least, the records show he is %ilt! of inflictin sli ht ph!sical in-%ries. (owever, the petitioner5s criminal liabilit! in this respect was wiped o%t b! the victim5s own act. "fter the hac*in incident, Urbano and 'avier %sed the facilities of baran a! mediators to effect a compromise a reement where 'avier for ave Urbano while Urbano defra!ed the medical e4penses of 'avier. 6his settlement of minor offenses is allowed %nder the e4press provisions of $residential .ecree 3.7. /o. 1=08, #ection 2;3<. ;#ee also $eople v. 8ar%ncho, 12B #87" 1><.