Case Digest: Wacoy & Quibac vs. People, GR 213792 & 213886, June 22, 2015

                Homicide | Criminal Law

Facts:

Witness Edward Benito was eating corn at a sari-sari store when he heard a commotion at a nearby establishment. Upon checking what the ruckus was all about, he saw his cousin, Elner Aro, already sprawled on the ground. While in that position, he saw Guillermo Wacoy kick Aro's stomach twice, after which, Wacoy picked up a rock to throw at Aro but was restrained from doing so. As Aro stood up, James Quibac punched him on the stomach, causing him to collapse and cry in pain. Thereafter, Aro was taken to the hospital.

At the hospital, Aro was diagnosed to be suffering from "blunt abdominal trauma with injury to the jejunum" and was set for operation. It was then discovered that he sustained a perforation on his ileum, i.e., the point where the small and large intestines meet, that caused intestinal bleeding, and that his entire abdominal peritoneum was filled with air and fluid contents from the bile. However, Aro suffered cardiac arrest during the operation, and while he was revived through cardiopulmonary resuscitation, he lapsed into a coma after the operation.

Due to financial constraints, Aro was taken out of the hospital against the doctor's orders and eventually, died the next day. While Aro's death certificate indicated that the cause of his death was "cardiopulmonary arrest antecedent to a perforated ileum and generalized peritonitis secondary to mauling," an autopsy performed on his remains revealed that the cause of his death was "rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt traumatic injuries."

The RTC found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray as conspiracy was not proven and the prosecution has failed to show the extent and effect of injury personally inflicted on that led to Aro's death.

Defense: 

While playing pool, Wacoy and Quibac saw Aro drunk and lying down. Suddenly, Aro became unruly and kicked the leg of the pool table, causing Wacoy to shout and pick up a stone to throw at Aro but Quibac pacified him. They also claimed that Aro almost hit Wacoy with a 2x3 piece of wood if not for Quibac' s intervention. Wacoy ran but Aro chased him and then tripped and fell to the ground. Quiniquin Carias, Aro's companion, followed Wacoy to the waiting shed nearby, cornered and kicked the latter, and the two engaged in a fist fight. Quibac came over to pacify the two and told Wacoy to go home.

Appellate Court: Guilty of homicide. Mitigating Cirumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Issue:

WoN the CA correctly found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.

Held:

Guilty of homicide.

Mitigating Circumstance: Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

Penalty: Reclusion Temporal

On Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray:

In the instant case, there was no tumultuous affray between groups of persons in the course of which Aro died.

On the contrary, the evidence clearly established that there were only two (2) persons, Wacoy and Quibac, who picked on one defenseless individual, Aro, and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches and kicks on the poor victim. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression in that fateful incident.

Since Wacoy and Quibac were even identified as the ones who assaulted Aro, the latter's death cannot be said to have been caused in a tumultuous affray. Therefore, the CA correctly held that Wacoy and Quibac' s act of mauling Aro was the proximate cause of the latter's death; and as such, they must be held criminally liable therefore, specifically for the crime of Homicide.

On Intent to Inflict Slight Injury:

The Court does not find merit in Wacoy's contention that in view of their intent only to inflict slight physical injuries on Aro, they should only be meted the corresponding penalty therefore in its maximum period, pursuant to Article 49 of the RPC.

Jurisprudence instructs that such provision should only apply where the crime committed is different from that intended and where the felony committed befalls a different person (error in personae); and not to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act (praeter intentionem), as in this case. It is well-settled that if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

❌Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. — When, while several persons, not composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.

If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used violence upon the person of the victim.

The elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray are as follows:

(a) that there be several persons;

(b) that they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally;

(c) that these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner; 

(d) that someone was killed in the course of the affray; 

(e) that it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and

(f) that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified.

Based on case law, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained.

Recit Version:

Facts:

Guillermo Wacoy and James Quibac were found guilty of the crime of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). 

The conviction was based on witness Edward Benito's testimony that he saw Wacoy kick Elner Aro's stomach twice and saw Quibac punch him in the stomach causing him to collapse and cry in pain. 

Aro was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with blunt abdominal trauma, which caused cardiac arrest during the operation. Aro died the next day after being taken out of the hospital against the doctor's orders. 

The RTC found that there was no clear evidence that Wacoy and Quibac conspired to kill Aro and the medical reports did not definitively establish that the injuries Aro sustained during the mauling caused his death.

Appellate Court: Guilty of homicide. Mitigating Cirumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Issue:

WoN the CA correctly found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.

Held:

Guilty of homicide.

Mitigating Circumstance: Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

Penalty: Reclusion Temporal

On Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray: 

In the instant case, there was no tumultuous affray between groups of persons in the course of which Aro died.

On the contrary, the evidence clearly established that there were only two (2) persons, Wacoy and Quibac. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression in that fateful incident. Since Wacoy and Quibac were even identified as the ones who assaulted Aro, the latter's death cannot be said to have been caused in a tumultuous affray. 

On Intent to Inflict Slight Injury: 

Article 49 of the RPC should only apply where the crime committed is different from that intended and where the felony committed befalls a different person (error in personae); and not to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act (praeter intentionem), as in this case. 

It is well-settled that if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.