Calimutan v.

People
Culpa distinguished from Dolo Hence this petition.
Chico-Nazario
Feb. 9, 2006 Issue and Dispositive:
Digest by PS Magno Is Calimutan guilty of homicide? No. Only
of reckless imprudence resulting in
Short Version: homicide.
Calimutan threw a stone at the victims
back. The victim died because of trauma Ratio:
to his spleen. The lower courts convicted Focus is on the issue of culpa and dolo:
him of homicide, but the SC reduced it to Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code
reckless imprudence. classifies felonies according to the means
by which they are committed, in
Facts: particular:
Calimutan and Bulalacao were walking intentional felonies, and
from the market. The victim, Cantre, and culpable felonies
the witness, Sanano, were walking from a
drinking spree from a videoke bar. When These two types of felonies are
the 2 parties met, Cantre punched distinguished from each other by the
Bulalacao because Cantre suspected existence or absence of malicious intent of
Bulalacao to be the one throwing stones at the offender
Cantres house. Bulalacao was able to run In intentional felonies, the act or
away. During the frenzy, Calimutan went omission of the offender is
behind Cantres back and threw a stone malicious.
(the size of a fist) at Cantres lower o The act is performed with
abdomen. deliberate intent (with
malice)
After the scuffle, the parties went home, o The offender, in performing
Cantre fell ill and complained of
the act or in incurring the
backaches. By nighttime, he was sweating
omission, has the intention
profusely and his body felt numb. He tried
to cause an injury to
to eat, but subsequently vomited the
another.
same. He died later that night.
In culpable felonies, the act or
Cantre was examined by Dr. Ulanday, the omission of the offender is not
Municipal Health Officer. Her Post-Mortem malicious.
Report stated that the cause of death was o The injury caused by the
cardio-respiratory arrest due to suspected offender to another person
food poisoning. is "unintentional, it being
simply the incident of
Cantres family was not satisfied with this another act performed
report, and they exhumed Cantres body, without malice."
and allowed NBI Dr. Mendez to examine o The wrongful act results
the same. His report stated that there was from imprudence,
a laceration of the spleen, and that the negligence, lack of foresight
cause of death was a traumatic injury of or lack of skill.
the abdomen.
xxx this Court cannot xxx attribute to
At the trial, witness Sanano and Dr. petitioner Calimutan any malicious intent
Mendez were presented as the to injure, much less to kill, the victim
prosecutions witnesses. The defense sole Cantre; and in the absence of such intent,
witness was Calimutan himself. this Court cannot sustain the conviction of
petitioner Calimutan for the intentional
The RTC convicted Calimutan of homicide. crime of homicide xxx
The CA affirmed the same.
Instead, this Court finds petitioner
Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the culpable felony of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide under
RPC 365 xxx
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 or failing to
perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.
Circumstances noted by the Court that
lead to their decision:
It was a chance encounter between
the 2 parties. There was no plan or
premeditation about any act.
The victim Cantre was the original
aggressor.
Cantre was a larger and older man
(59, and 26 years old) as
compared his victim, Bulalacao
(50, and 15 years old)
Calimutan only sought to protect
Bulalacao and to stop the assault
of Cantre when he picked up the
stone.
That Calimutan threw the stone at
Cantres back does not
automatically imply treachery.
He probably did so in the midst of
the fray, and (threw the stone)
rashly and impulsively
It was a brief scuffle
Further, the prosecution was not able to
establish that Calimutan did the act with
the specific intent of killing, or even
harming Cantre. Calimutans intention was
to protect Bulalacao
Other issue (not really important):
There was an issue re. the conflicting
findings of the 2 doctors who performed
autopsies on the Cantre.
1st doctor: Ulanday (found that the
COD was food poisoning) she
admitted that she did not perform
an autopsy as pervasive as the one
conducted by the other doctor,
because she did not slice open the
head and body, but merely made
an incision in the stomach, and
tried to figure out the
circumstances surrounding the
death through her hand.
2nd doctor: Mendez (found that the
COD was traumatic injury to the
abdomen) NBI doctors are trained
to perform more invasive
autopsies, and thus he was able to
perform a more thorough analysis
of the victim.
Either way, the defense admitted the
expertise of Mendez.