EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42117. March 29, 1935.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS , plaintiff-appellee, vs.

DECISION

HULL, J : p

Appellant was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur of the
crime of homicide committed on the person of Fausta Tavera on the evening of April
30, 1934.
Previous to the crime, the deceased for a couple of weeks had been living with
appellant, but her parents had persuaded her to come home and were demanding that
appellant pay a dowry of P30 before the date of the celebration of the marriage could
be fixed.
That evening there had been a barrio procession, and after the procession, they
were gathered in one of the houses, where an impromptu dance took place. The
deceased and appellant were talking in the yard of the house where the dance was
taking place, and she informed him that she could not return to him and that she was
going with her parents to Catanduanes. Appellant dragged the deceased towards the
street and stabbed her in the chest with a fanknife. Deceased ran to the house of the
barrio lieutenant, a short distance away, falling dead at the foot of the staircase,
although the wound was only a slight one, it not having penetrated the thoracic cavity,
having hit a bone.
Immediately Andres Tapil, Tomas and Rufino, relatives of the deceased,
attempted to seize the appellant, but with the aid of his knife, he escaped and ran from
the scene of the affray.
Appellant as witness in his own behalf claimed that he was attacked by the three
relatives of the deceased, and if deceased was wounded by him, it was in the midst of
that affray and purely accidental on his part.
Not only is this testimony directly contrary to the witnesses for the prosecution but
is greatly weakened by appellant's own statement given to the chief of police the day
after the crime. The story as told by appellant was not believed by the trial court, and on
the whole does not ring with sincerity and truth.
Appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of homicide as the wound
actually inflicted was a superficial wound of no intrinsic magnitude. As above stated,
deceased ran screaming to the nearby house where she dropped dead. The sanitary
inspector who examined the body the next day, found no other wound and certified that
deceased had died from shock as a result of the wound and so testified at the trial.
The death having occurred in an outlying barrio, there was no proper autopsy. So
far as is known, deceased was in normal health, but appellant contends that it is
incumbent upon the State to prove that the deceased did not die of poisoning or some
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 other cause.
In this jurisdiction it is well settled that such is not the law. A person is
responsible for the consequences of his criminal act and even if the deceased had been
shown to be suffering from a diseased heart (which was not shown), appellant's assault
being the proximate cause of the death, he would be responsible. (U. S. vs. Luciano, 2
Phil., 96; U. S. vs. Lugo and Lugo, 8 Phil., 80; U. S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil., 310; U. S. vs.
Rodriguez, 23 Phil., 22.)
The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances that the offender had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and that sufficient provocation
or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
We have repeatedly held that when a person stabs another with a lethal weapon
such as a fan knife upon a part of the body, for example, the head, or stomach, death
could reasonably be anticipated, and the accused, must be presumed to have intended
the natural consequences of his wrongful act. The means employed contradict the claim
that appellant had lack of intention to commit the crime of homicide.
The trial court considered provocation as a mitigating circumstance based on the
testimony of appellant that he had been attacked, overlooking the fact that the law
requires that the provocation come from the offended party. Certainly the deceased did
not attack appellant, and her refusal to renew her illicit relationship with him can hardly
be construed as legal provocation.
On a careful review of the evidence we are convinced that appellant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide without either aggravating or
mitigating circumstances and therefore sentence him under Act No. 4103 to from eight
years of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion
temporal and to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the sum of P1,000. As thus
modified the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Vickers, Imperial, Butte, Goddard and Diaz, JJ.,
concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com