People v Carmen

G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001

TOPIC: Culpa | Elements
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellants: Eutiquia Carmen @ Mother Perpetuala, Celedonia Fabie @ Isabel Fabie, Delia Sibonga @ Deding
Sibonga, Alexander Sibonga @ Nonoy Sibonga, And Reynario Nuez @ Rey Nuez
Ponente: Mendoza

FACTS: RTC Cebu convicted defendants of murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity as well as the costs.
around 2 o'clock in the afternoon of January 27, 1997, 2 girls playing heard a boy shout for help, around the vicinity of the
house of Carmen known as Mother perpetuala. She and two ther women Cledonia and Delia were immersing Randy
Luntayaos head into a drum of water, forced him to drink water and then banged his head on the bench ehwas tied down to
whenever he tried to raise his head. They pounded the chest and dropped Celedonias weight on the boys chest. They
plunged a knife on his left side and caught the blood into a plastic gallon container.
Randy was 13, the eldest child of Eddie Luntayao. They thought he had a nervous breakdown, and Carmen said she could
exorcise the boy.
A few hours later, at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, accused-appellants carried Randy into the prayer room and placed
him on the altar. Eddie was shocked by what he saw. Randy was clearly dead, and Carmen stopped him from seeing the boy
because she said he would be resurrected that evening. But came that time, Carmen asked Nunez to to call the funeral
parlor and bring a coffin as the child was already dead. It was arranged that the body would be transferred to the house of
accused-appellant Nuez. the Luntayao family, accompanied by accused-appellant Nuez, took Randy's body to Nunez's
house in Tangke, Talisay. The following day, January 28, 1997, accused-appellant Nuez told Eddie to go with him to the
Talisay Municipal Health Office to report Randy's death and told him to keep quiet or they might not be able to get the
necessary papers for his son's burial. Nuez took care of securing the death certificate which Eddie signed. At around 3
o'clock in the afternoon of January 28, 1997, accused-appellant Carmen went to Tangke, Talisay to ensure that the body was
buried. Eddie and his wife told her that they preferred to bring their son's body with them to Sikatuna, Isabela, Negros
Occidental but they were told by accused-appellant Carmen that this was not possible as she and the other accused-
appellants might be arrested. That same afternoon, Randy Luntayao was buried in Tangke, Talisay.
After Eddie and his family had returned home to Negros Occidental, Eddie sought assistance from the Bombo Radyo station
in Bacolod City which referred him to the NBI. On February 3, 1997, Eddie filed a complaint for murder, and asked that his
sons remains be exhumed and autopsied. Carmen and the others admitted that she and the other accused-appellants
conducted a "pray-over healing" session on the victim on January 27, 1997, accused-appellant Carmen refused to give any
further statement. On Feb 20, 1997, the body was exhumed and autopsied: traumatic head and chest injuries.
Defense witnesses attested to the healing of Carmen by pray over and without any form of violence.

ISSUE: whether the accused are guilty of murder

HELD: No, because the death resulted from reckless imprudence and there was no malice or intent to kill.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cebu City, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
accused-appellants are hereby declared guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and are each sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional, as maximum. In addition, accused-appellants are ORDERED jointly and severally to pay the heirs of
Randy Luntayao indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and exemplary
damages in the amount of P30,000.00.

RULE:
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
the person performing such act. Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide or murder, what takes the place of the
element of malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is the failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill
taking into account his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances
regarding persons, time, and place.

RATIO:
RTC Ratio: In murder qualified by treachery, it is required only that there is treachery in the attack, and this is true even if the
offender has no intent to kill the person assaulted. Killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill.
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. Ordinarily, when a person commits a felony with malice, he intends the
consequences of his felonious act. In view of paragraph 1 of Art. 4, a person committing a felony is criminally liable although
the consequences of his felonious acts are not intended by him. Intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
The presumption of criminal intent may arise from the proof of the criminal act and it is for the accused to rebut this
presumption. In the case at bar, there is enough evidence that the accused confederated with one another in inflicting
physical harm to the victim (an illegal act). These acts were intentional, and the wrong done resulted in the death of their
victim. Hence, they are liable for all the direct and natural consequences of their unlawful act, even if the ultimate result had
not been intended.

SC: The treatment was intended to drive the bad spirit away from the boy, but the strange procedure resulted in death. The
accused did not intend to kill him. Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence because they ought that to know their
actions would not bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and not of
murder. accused-appellants, none of whom is a medical practitioner, belong to a religious group, known as the Missionaries
of Our Lady of Fatima, which is engaged in faith healing. treachery cannot be appreciated for in the absence of intent to kill,
there is no treachery or the deliberate employment of means, methods, and manner of execution to ensure the safety of the
accused from the defensive or retaliatory attacks coming from the victim.[33] Viewed in this light, the acts which the trial
court saw as manifestations of treachery in fact relate to efforts by accused-appellants to restrain Randy Luntayao so that
they can effect the cure on him.