TodayisSunday,August14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.152133February9,2006
ROLLIECALIMUTAN,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,ETAL.,Respondents.
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner Rollie Calimutan
praysforthereversaloftheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.23306,dated29August2001,1
affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, of Masbate, Masbate, in Criminal Case No.
8184, dated 19 November 1998,2 finding petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicideunderArticle249oftheRevisedPenalCode.
TheInformation3filedwiththeRTCchargedpetitionerCalimutanwiththecrimeofhomicide,allegedlycommittedas
follows
That on or about February 4, 1996, in the morning thereof, at sitio Capsay, Barangay Panique, Municipality of
Aroroy,ProvinceofMasbate,PhilippineswithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused
withintenttokill,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandthrowastoneatPHILIP
CANTRE,hittinghimatthebackleftportionofhisbody,resultinginlacerationofspleenduetoimpactwhichcaused
hisdeathadayafter.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Masbate,Masbate,September11,1996.
Accordingly, the RTC issued, on 02 December 1996, a warrant4 for the arrest of petitioner Calimutan. On 09
January1997,however,hewasprovisionallyreleased5afterpostingsufficientbailbond.6Duringthearraignmenton
21May1997,petitionerCalimutanpleadednotguiltytothecrimeofhomicidechargedagainsthim.7
Inthecourseofthetrial,theprosecutionpresentedthreewitnesses,namely:(1)Dr.RonaldoB.Mendez,aSenior
MedicoLegalOfficeroftheNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)(2)BelenB.Cantre,motherofthevictim,Philip
Cantre and (3) Rene L. Saano, companion of the victim Cantre when the alleged crime took place. Their
testimoniesarecollectivelysummarizedbelow.
On 04 February 1996, at around 10:00 a.m., the victim Cantre and witness Saano, together with two other
companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar in Crossing Capsay, Panique, Aroroy, Masbate. From the
videokebar,thevictimCantreandwitnessSaanoproceededtogohometotheirrespectivehouses,butalongthe
way,theycrossedpathswithpetitionerCalimutanandacertainMichaelBulalacao.VictimCantrewasharboringa
grudgeagainstBulalacao,suspectingthelatterastheculpritresponsibleforthrowingstonesattheCantreshouse
onapreviousnight.Thus,uponseeingBulalacao,victimCantresuddenlypunchedhim.WhileBulalacaoranaway,
petitioner Calimutan dashed towards the backs of victim Cantre and witness Saano. Petitioner Calimutan then
pickedupastone,asbigasamansfist,whichhethrewatvictimCantre,hittinghimattheleftsideofhisback.
Whenhitbythestone,victimCantrestoppedforamomentandheldhisback.WitnessSaanoputhimselfbetween
thevictimCantreandpetitionerCalimutan,andattemptedtopacifythetwo,evenconvincingpetitionerCalimutanto
put down another stone he was already holding. He also urged victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan to just go
home.WitnessSaanoaccompaniedvictimCantretothelattershouse,andontheway,victimCantrecomplained
ofthepainintheleftsideofhisbackhitbythestone.TheyarrivedattheCantreshouseataround12:00noon,and
witnessSaanoleftvictimCantretothecareofthelattersmother,Belen.8

Victim Cantre immediately told his mother, Belen, of the stoning incident involving petitioner Calimutan. He again
complained of backache and also of stomachache, and was unable to eat. By nighttime, victim Cantre was
alternatelyfeelingcoldandthenwarm.Hewassweatingprofuselyandhisentirebodyfeltnumb.Hisfamilywould
havewantedtobringhimtoadoctorbuttheyhadnovehicle.Ataround3:00a.m.ofthefollowingday,05February
1996,Belenwaswipinghissonwithapieceofcloth,whenvictimCantreaskedforsomefood.Hewasabletoeata
little, but he also later vomited whatever he ate. For the last time, he complained of backache and stomachache,
andshortlythereafter,hedied.9
Right after his death, victim Cantre was examined by Dr. Conchita S. Ulanday, the Municipal Health Officer of
Aroroy, Masbate. The PostMortem Examination Report10 and Certification of Death,11 issued and signed by Dr.
Ulanday, stated that the cause of death of victim Cantre was cardiorespiratory arrest due to suspected food
poisoning.ThebodyofvictimCantrewassubsequentlyembalmedandburiedon13February1996.
Unsatisfied with the findings of Dr. Ulanday, the Cantre family, with the help of the Lingkod BayanCirculo de
AbogadasoftheABSCBNFoundation,requestedforanexhumationandautopsyofthebodyofthevictimCantre
bytheNBI.TheexhumationandautopsyofthebodyofthevictimCantrewasconductedbyDr.RonaldoB.Mendez
on15April1996,12afterwhich,hereportedthefollowingfindings
BodyfairlywellpreservedwithsignofpartialautopsycladinwhiteBarongTagalogandbluepantsplacedinsidea
woodengoldenbrowncoffinandburiedinaconcreteniche.
Contusedabrasion,2.3x1.0cms.,posteriorchestwall,leftside.
Hematoma,16.0x8.0cms.,abdomen,alongmidline.
Hemoperitoneum,massive,clotte[sic].
Laceration,spleen.
Othervisceralorgan,paleandembalmed.
Stomachcontainssmallamountofwhitishfluidandotherpartiallydigestedfoodparticles.
xxxx
CAUSEOFDEATH:TRAUMATICINJURYOFTHEABDOMEN.
In his testimony before the RTC, Dr. Mendez affirmed the contents of his exhumation and autopsy report. He
explainedthatthevictimCantresufferedfromaninternalhemorrhageandtherewasmassiveaccumulationofblood
in his abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen. The laceration of the spleen can be caused by any blunt
instrument,suchasastone.Hence,Dr.MendezconfirmedthepossibilitythatthevictimCantrewasstonedtodeath
bypetitionerCalimutan.13
To counter the evidence of the prosecution, the defense presented the sole testimony of the accused, herein
petitioner,Calimutan.
AccordingtopetitionerCalimutan,atabout1:00p.m.on04February1996,hewaswalkingwithhishousehelper,
Michael Bulalacao, on their way to Crossing Capsay, Panique, Aroroy, Masbate, when they met with the victim
Cantre and witness Saano. The victim Cantre took hold of Bulalacao and punched him several times. Petitioner
CalimutanattemptedtopacifythevictimCantrebutthelatterrefusedtocalmdown,pullingoutfromhiswaistan
eightinch Batangas knife and uttering that he was looking for trouble, either "to kill or be killed." At this point,
petitionerCalimutanwasabouttenmetersawayfromthevictimCantreandwastoofrightenedtomoveanycloser
forfearthattheenragedmanwouldturnonhimhestillhadafamilytotakecareof.Whenhesawthatthevictim
CantrewasabouttostabBulalacao,petitionerCalimutanpickedupastone,whichhedescribedasapproximately
oneinch in diameter, and threw it at the victim Cantre. He was able to hit the victim Cantre on his right buttock.
Petitioner Calimutan and Bulalacao then started to run away, and victim Cantre chased after them, but witness
SaanowasabletopacifythevictimCantre.PetitionerCalimutanallegedlyreportedtheincidenttoakagawadof
BarangayPaniqueandtothepoliceauthoritiesandsoughttheirhelpinsettlingthedisputebetweenBulalacaoand
the victim Cantre. Bulalacao, meanwhile, refused to seek medical help despite the advice of petitioner Calimutan
and,instead,chosetogobacktohishometown.14
PetitionerCalimutanwastotallyunawareofwhathadhappenedtothevictimCantreafterthestoningincidenton04
February1996.SomeofhisfriendstoldhimthattheystillsawthevictimCantredrinkingatavideokebaronthe
night of 04 February 1996. As far as he knew, the victim Cantre died the following day, on 05 February 1996,
because of food poisoning. Petitioner Calimutan maintained that he had no personal grudge against the victim
Cantreprevioustothestoningincident.15

On 19 November 1998, the RTC rendered its Decision,16 essentially adopting the prosecutions account of the
incidenton04February1996,andpronouncingthat
It cannot be legallycontendedthatthethrowingofthestonebytheaccused was in defense of his companion, a
stranger, because after the boxing Michael was able to run. While it appears that the victim was the unlawful
aggressoratthebeginning,buttheaggressionalreadyceasedafterMichaelwasabletorunandtherewasnomore
need for throwing a stone. The throwing of the stone to the victim which was a retaliatory act can be considered
unlawful,hencetheaccusedcanbeheldcriminallyliableunderparagraph1ofArt.4oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Theactofthrowingastonefrombehindwhichhitthevictimathisbackontheleftsidewasatreacherousoneand
theaccusedcommittedafelonycausingphysicalinjuriestothevictim.Thephysicalinjuryofhematomaasaresult
oftheimpactofthestoneresultedinthelacerationofthespleencausingthedeathofthevictim.Theaccusedis
criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of this unlawful act even if the ultimate result had not
beenintended.(Art.4,Par.1,RevisedPenalCodePeoplevs.Narciso,CAG.R.No.03532CR,Jan.13,1964)
Oneisnotrelievedfromcriminalliabilityforthenaturalconsequencesofonesillegalactsmerelybecauseonedoes
notintendtoproducesuchconsequences(U.S.vs.Brobst,14Phil.310).
ThecrimecommittedisHomicideasdefinedandpenalizedunderArt.249oftheRevisedPenalCode.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds and so holds that accused ROLLIE CALIMUTAN is GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubtofthecrimeofHomicidedefinedandpenalizedunderArt.249oftheRevisedPenalCodewithnomitigating
or aggravating circumstance and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby imposes the penalty of
imprisonmentfromEIGHT(8)YEARSofPrisionMayorasminimum,toTWELVE(12)YEARSandONE(1)DAYof
Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of Philip Cantre the sum of Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00) Pesos as compensatory damages and the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral
damages,withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.
Petitioner Calimutan appealed the Decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in its
Decision, dated 29 August 2001,17 sustained the conviction of homicide rendered by the RTC against petitioner
Calimutan,ratiocinatingthus
Theprosecutionhassufficientlyestablishedthattheseriousinternalinjurysustainedbythevictimwascausedby
thestonethrownatthevictimbytheaccusedwhich,theaccusedappellantdoesnotdeny.Itwaslikewiseshown
thattheinternalinjurysustainedbythevictimwastheresultoftheimpactofthestonethathitthevictim.Itresulted
toatraumaticinjuryoftheabdomencausingthelacerationofthevictimsspleen.
ThisisclearlyshownbytheautopsyreportpreparedbyDr.RonaldoMendez,aSeniorMedicoLegalOfficerofthe
NBIaftertheexhumationofthevictimscadaver
The Court cannot give credence to the post mortem report prepared by Municipal Health Officer Dr. Conchita
Ulanday stating that the cause of the victims death was food poisoning. Dr. Ulanday was not even presented to
testifyincourthenceshewasnotevenabletoidentifyand/oraffirmthecontentsofherreport.Shewasnotmade
availableforcrossexaminationontheaccuracyandcorrectnessofherfindings.
Dr. Conchita Ulandays post mortem report cannot prevail over the autopsy report (Exh. "C") of the MedicoLegal
OfficeroftheNBIwhotestifiedandwascrossexaminedbythedefense.
Besides, if accusedappellant was convinced that the victim indeed died of food poisoning, as reported by Dr.
ConchitaUlanday,whydidtheynotpresentherastheirwitnesstobeliethereportoftheMedicoLegalOfficerofthe
NBI.
The trial courts evaluation of the testimony of Dr. Mendez is accorded the highest respect because it had the
opportunitytoobservetheconductanddemeanorofsaidwitness.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Branch 46, finding
accusedappellantguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofhomicideisherebyAFFIRMED.
The Court of Appeals,initsResolution,dated15January2002,18 denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
petitionerCalimutanforlackofmeritsincetheissuesraisedthereinhadalreadybeenpassedandruleduponinits
Decision,dated29August2001.
ComesnowpetitionerCalimutan,bywayofthepresentPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,seeking(1)thereversalof
theDecisionsoftheRTC,dated19November1998,andoftheCourtofAppeals,dated29August2001,convicting
himofthecrimeofhomicideand,(2)consequently,hisacquittalofthesaidcrimebasedonreasonabledoubt.

PetitionerCalimutancontendedthattheexistenceofthetwoautopsyreports,withdissimilarfindingsonthecause
of death of the victim Cantre, constituted reasonable doubt as to the liability of petitioner Calimutan for the said
death,arguingthat
x x x [I]t was Dra. Conchita Ulanday, Municipal Health Officer of Aroroy, Masbate was the first physician of the
governmentwhoconductedanexaminationonthecadaverofthevictimPhilipCantrewhosefindingswasthatthe
causeofhisdeathwasduetofoodpoisoningwhilethesecondgovernmentphysicianNBIMedicoLegalOfficerDr.
Ronaldo Mendez whose findings was that the cause of the death was due to a traumatic injury of the abdomen
caused by a lacerated spleen and with these findings of two (2) government physicians whose findings are at
variancewitheachothermaterially,itishumblycontendedthatthesameissueraisedareasonabledoubtonthe
culpabilityofthepetitioner.
As there are improbabilities and uncertainties of the evidence for the prosecution in the case at bar, it suffices to
reaise [sic] reasonable doubt as to the petitioners guilt and therefore, he is entitled to acquittal (People vs.
Delmendo,G.R.No.32146,November23,1981).19
In this jurisdiction, an accused in a criminal case may only be convicted if his or her guilt is established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof
whichproducesconvictioninanunprejudicedminditdoesnotdemandabsolutecertaintyandtheexclusionofall
possibilityoferror.20
InthePetitionatbar,thisCourtfindsthatthereisproofbeyondreasonabledoubttoholdpetitionerCalimutanliable
forthedeathofthevictimCantre.
Undoubtedly,theexhumationandautopsyreportandthepersonaltestimonybeforetheRTCofprosecutionwitness,
NBISeniorMedicoLegalOfficerDr.Mendez,arevitalpiecesofevidenceagainstpetitionerCalimutan.Dr.Mendez
determinedthatthevictimCantrediedofinternalhemorrhageorbleedingduetothelacerationofhisspleen.Inhis
testimony,Dr.Mendezclearlyandconsistentlyexplainedthatthespleencouldbelaceratedorrupturedwhenthe
abdominalareawashitwithabluntobject,suchasthestonethrownbypetitionerCalimutanatthevictimCantre.
ItbearstoemphasizethatDr.Mendezwaspresentedbytheprosecutionasanexpertwitness,whose"competency
and academic qualification and background" was admitted by the defense itself.21 As a Senior MedicoLegal
Officer of the NBI, Dr. Mendez is presumed to possess sufficient knowledge of pathology, surgery, gynecology,
toxicology,andsuchotherbranchesofmedicinegermanetotheissuesinvolvedinacase.22
Dr.Mendezstestimonyasanexpertwitnessisevidence,23 and although it does not necessarily bind the courts,
boththeRTCandtheCourtofAppealshadproperlyaccordeditgreatweightandprobativevalue.Havingtestified
astomattersundeniablywithinhisareaofexpertise,andhavingperformedathoroughautopsyonthebodyofthe
victimCantre,hisfindingsastothecauseofdeathofthevictimCantrearemorethanjustthemerespeculationsof
an ordinary person. They may sufficiently establish the causal relationship between the stone thrown by the
petitionerCalimutanandthelaceratedspleenofthevictimCantrewhich,subsequently,resultedinthelattersdeath.
Withnoapparentmistakeorirregularity,whetherinthemannerbywhichDr.Mendezperformedtheautopsyonthe
bodyofthevictimCantreorinhisfindings,thenhisreportandtestimonymustbeseriouslyconsideredbythisCourt.
Moreover, reference to other resource materials on abdominal injuries would also support the conclusion of Dr.
MendezthatthestonethrownbypetitionerCalimutancausedthedeathofthevictimCantre.
Onesourceexplainsthenatureofabdominalinjuries24inthefollowingmanner
The skin may remainunmarked inspite of extensive internal injuries with bleeding and disruption of the internal
organs. The areas most vulnerable are the point of attachment of internal organs, especially at the source of its
bloodsupplyandatthepointwherebloodvesselschangedirection.
Theareainthemiddlesuperiorhalfoftheabdomen,formingatriangleboundedbytheribsonthetwosidesanda
linedrawnhorizontallythroughtheumbilicusformingitsbaseisvulnerabletotraumaappliedfromanydirection.
In this triangle are found several blood vessels changing direction, particularly the celiac trunk, its branches (the
hepatic,splenicandgastricarteries)aswellastheaccompanyingveins.Theloopoftheduodenum,theligament
of Treitz and the pancreas are in the retroperitoneal space, and the stomach and transverse colon are in the
triangle, located in the peritoneal cavity. Compression or blow on the area may cause detachment, laceration,
stretchstress,contusionoftheorgans(LegalMedicine1980,CyrilH.Wechtet.,p.41).
Astoinjuriestothespleen,inparticular,25thesamesourceexpoundsthat
The spleen usually suffers traumatic rupture resulting from the impact of a fall or blow from the crushing and
grindingeffectsofwheelsofmotorvehicles.Althoughtheorganisprotectedatitsupperportionbytheribsandalso

by the aircontaining visceral organs, yet on account of its superficiality and fragility, it is usually affected by
trauma.xxx.
Certainly,therearesometermsintheabovequotedparagraphsdifficulttocomprehendforpeoplewithoutmedical
backgrounds.Nevertheless,therearesomepointsthatcanbeplainlyderivedtherefrom: (1) Contrary to common
perception,theabdominalareaismorethanjustthewaistarea.Theentireabdominalareaisdividedintodifferent
triangles,andthespleenislocatedintheuppertriangle,boundedbytheribcage(2)Thespleenandallinternal
organs in the same triangle are vulnerable to trauma from all directions. Therefore, the stone need not hit the
victimCantrefromthefront.EvenimpactfromastonehittingthebackofthevictimCantre,intheareaoftheafore
mentionedtriangle,couldrupturethespleenand(3)Althoughthespleenhadalreadybeenrupturedorlacerated,
there may not always be a perceptible external injury to the victim. Injury to the spleen cannot, at all times, be
attributedtoanobvious,externalinjurysuchasacutorbruise.ThelacerationofthevictimCantresspleencanbe
causedbyastonethrownhardenough,whichqualifiesasanonpenetratingtrauma26
NonpenetratingTrauma.Thespleen,aloneorincombinationwithotherviscera,isthemostfrequentlyinjured
organ following blunt trauma to the abdomen or the lower thoracic cage. Automobile accidents provide the
predominating cause, while falls, sledding and bicycle injuries, and blows incurred during contact sports are
frequentlyimplicatedinchildren.xxx
The sheer impact of the stone thrown by petitioner Calimutan at the back of the victim Cantre could rupture or
lacerate the spleen an organ described as vulnerable, superficial, and fragile even without causing any other
externalphysicalinjury.Accordingly,thefindingsofDr.MendezthatthevictimCantrediedofinternalhemorrhage
from his lacerated spleen, and the cause of the laceration of the spleen was the stone thrown by petitioner
CalimutanatthebackofthevictimCantre,doesnotnecessarilycontradicthistestimonybeforetheRTCthatnone
oftheexternalinjuriesofthevictimCantrewerefatal.
Basedontheforegoingdiscussion,theprosecutionwasabletoestablishthattheproximatecauseofthedeathof
thevictimCantrewasthestonethrownathimbypetitionerCalimutan.Proximatecausehasbeendefinedas"that
cause,which,innaturalandcontinuoussequence,unbrokenbyanyefficientinterveningcause,producestheinjury,
andwithoutwhichtheresultwouldnothaveoccurred."27
The two other witnesses presented by the prosecution, namely Saano and Belen Cantre, had adequately
recountedtheeventsthattranspiredon04February1996to05February1996.Betweenthetwoofthem,thesaid
witnesses accounted for the whereabouts, actions, and physical condition of the victim Cantre during the said
period. Before the encounter with petitioner Calimutan and Bulalacao, the victim Cantre seemed to be physically
fine.However,afterbeinghitatthebackbythestonethrownathimbypetitionerCalimutan,thevictimCantrehad
continuouslycomplainedofbackache.Subsequently,hisphysicalconditionrapidlydeteriorated,untilfinally,hedied.
Other than being stoned by petitioner Calimutan, there was no other instance when the victim Cantre may have
beenhitbyanotherbluntinstrumentwhichcouldhavecausedthelacerationofhisspleen.
Hence,thisCourtismorallypersuadedthatthevictimCantrediedfromalaceratedspleen,aninjurysustainedafter
being hit by a stone thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan. Not even the postmortem report of Dr. Ulanday, the
Municipal Health Officer who first examined the body of the victim Cantre, can raise reasonable doubt as to the
cause of death of the victim Cantre. Invoking Dr. Ulandays postmortem report, the defense insisted on the
possibility that the victim Cantre died of food poisoning. The postmortem report, though, cannot be given much
weightandprobativevalueforthefollowingreasons
First,acloserscrutinyofthewordsusedbyDr.Ulandayinherpostmortemreport,aswellasinthedeathcertificate
ofthevictimCantre,revealsthatalthoughshesuspectedfoodpoisoningasthecauseofdeath,sheheldbackfrom
makingacategoricalstatementthatitwasso.Inthepostmortemreport, 28shefoundthat"xxxtheprovable(sic)
causeofdeathwasduetocardiorespiratoryarrest.Foodpoisoningmustbeconfirm(sic)bylaboratorye(x)am."In
thedeathcertificateofthevictimCantre, 29shewrotethattheimmediatecauseofdeathwas"CardioRespiratory
Arrest" and the antecedent cause was "Food Poisoning Suspect." There was no showing that further laboratory
testswereindeedconductedtoconfirmDr.UlandayssuspicionthatthevictimCantresufferedfromfoodpoisoning,
andwithoutsuchconfirmation,hersuspicionastothecauseofdeathremainsjustthatasuspicion.
Second,Dr.UlandayexecutedbeforetheNBIaswornstatement30inwhichshehadexplainedherfindingsinthe
postmortemreport,towit
05.Q:Didyouconductanautopsyonhiscadaver?
A:Ididsir,butnotasexhaustiveasthatdonebytheNBIMedicolegal.
06.Q:Now,whatdoyouwanttostateregardingyourcertificationonthedeathofPHILIPB.CANTRE?

A:IstatedinthecertificationandevenintheDeathCertificateabout"FoodPoisoning".WhatIstatedintheDeath
CertificatewasthatCANTREwasaSUSPECTEDvictimoffoodpoisoning.Ididntstatethathewasacaseoffood
poisoning.AndintheCertification,Ievenrecommendedthatanexaminationbedonetoconfirmthatsuspicion.
07.Q:Whatgaveyouthatsuspicionofpoisoning?
A:Astherewerenoexternalsignsoffatalinjuriesexceptthatofthecontusionorabrasion,measuringasthatsizeof
a25centavocoin,Ibasedmysuspicionfromthehistoryofthevictimandfromthepoliceinvestigation.
08.Q:YoualsomentionedinyourCertificationthattherewasnointernalhemorrhageinthecadaver.Didyouopen
thebodyofthecadaver?
A:AsIhavealreadystatedsir,Ididnotconductanexhaustiveautopsy.ImadeanincisionontheabdomenandI
exploredtheinternalorgansofthecadaverwithmyhandinsearchforanyclottinginside.ButIfoundnone.Ididnot
openthebodyofthecadaver.
09.Q:Youmentionedaboutacontusionyouhaveobservedonthecadaver.Wherewasitlocated?
A:Ontheleftportionofhisback,sir.
10.Q:Now,isitpossiblethatifsomebodybehitbyahardobjectonthatpartofhisbody,hisSPLEENcouldbe
injured?
A:Yes,sir.Butthatwoulddependonhowstrongorforcefultheimpactwas.
Incontrast,Dr.MendezdescribedinhistestimonybeforetheRTC31howheconductedtheautopsyofthebodyof
thevictimCantre,asfollows
QWhatspecificproceduredidyoudoinconnectionwiththeexhumationofthebodyofthevictiminthiscase?
AWeopenedthehead,chestandtheabdomen.
QThatwaspartoftheautopsyyouhaveconducted?
AYes,sir.
Q Aside from opening the head as well as the body of the victim Philip Cantre, what other matters did you do in
connectiontherewith?
AWeexaminedtheinternalorgans.
QWhatinparticularinternalorgansyouhaveexamined?
AThebrain,theheart,thelungs,theliver,thekidneys,thepancreasplustheintestines.
xxxx
QThecauseofdeathasyouhavelistedhereinyourfindingsislistedastraumaticinjuryoftheabdomen,willyou
kindlytellusDoctorwhatisthesignificanceofthismedicaltermtraumaticinjuryoftheabdomen?
A We, medicolegal officers of the NBI dont do what other doctors do as they make causes of death as internal
hemorrhageweparticularlypointtotheinjuryofthebodylikethisparticularcasetheinjurywasattheabdomenof
thevictim.
QWillyoutellasDoctorwhatparticularportionoftheabdomenofthevictimthistraumaticinjuryislocated?
AAlongthemidlinebutthedamagedorganwasattheleft.
QWhatparticularorganareyoureferringto?
AThespleen,sir.
The difference in the extent of the examinations conducted by the two doctors of the body of the victim Cantre
providesanadequateexplanationfortheirapparentinconsistentfindingsastothecauseofdeath.Comparingthe
limitedautopsyconductedbyDr.UlandayandherunconfirmedsuspicionoffoodpoisoningofthevictimCantre,as
opposedtotheexhaustiveautopsyperformedbyDr.Mendezandhisdefinitivefindingofarupturedspleenasthe
causeofdeathofthevictimCantre,thenthelatter,withoutdoubt,deservestobegivencredencebythecourts.

Third, that the prosecution no longer presented Dr. Ulanday before the RTC despite being included in its list of
witnesses did not amount to a willful suppression of evidence that would give rise to the presumption that her
testimony would be adverse to the prosecution if produced.32 As this Court already expounded in the case of
Peoplev.Jumamoy33
Theprosecution'sfailuretopresenttheotherwitnesseslistedintheinformationdidnotconstitute,contrarytothe
contentionoftheaccused,suppressionofevidence.Theprosecutorhastheexclusiveprerogativetodeterminethe
witnessestobepresentedfortheprosecution.Iftheprosecutionhasseveraleyewitnesses,asintheinstantcase,
the prosecutor need not present all of them but only as many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof
necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses
may, therefore, be dispensed with for being merely corroborative in nature. This Court has ruled that the non
presentationofcorroborativewitnesseswouldnotconstitutesuppressionofevidenceandwouldnotbefataltothe
prosecution's case. Besides, there is no showing that the eyewitnesses who were not presented in court as
witnesseswerenotavailabletotheaccused.Wereiteratetherulethattheadversepresumptionfromasuppression
of evidence is not applicable when (1) the suppression is not willful (2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is
merelycorroborativeorcumulative(3)theevidenceisatthedisposalofbothpartiesand(4)thesuppressionisan
exercise of a privilege. Moreover, if the accused believed that the failure to present the other witnesses was
becausetheirtestimonieswouldbeunfavorabletotheprosecution,heshouldhavecompelledtheirappearance,by
compulsoryprocess,totestifyashisownwitnessesorevenashostilewitnesses.
ItwasajudgmentcallfortheprosecutiontonolongerpresentDr.UlandaybeforetheRTC,perhapsbelievingthatit
hadalreadypresentedsufficientevidencetomerittheconvictionofpetitionerCalimutanevenwithouthertestimony.
Therewasnothing,however,preventingthedefensefromcallingon,orevencompelling,withtheappropriatecourt
processes,Dr.Ulandaytotestifyincourtasitswitnessifittrulybelievedthathertestimonywouldbeadversetothe
casepresentedbytheprosecution.
WhilethisCourtisinaccordwiththefactualfindingsoftheRTCandtheCourtofAppealsandaffirmsthatthereis
ample evidence proving that the death of the victim Cantre was caused by his lacerated spleen, an injury which
resultedfrombeinghitbythestonethrownathimbypetitionerCalimutan,thisCourt,nonetheless,isatvariance
with the RTC and the Court of Appeals as to the determination of the appropriate crime or offense for which the
petitionershouldhavebeenconvictedfor.
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies felonies according to the means by which they are committed, in
particular:(1)intentionalfelonies,and(2)culpablefelonies.Thesetwotypesoffeloniesaredistinguishedfromeach
otherbytheexistenceorabsenceofmaliciousintentoftheoffender
Inintentionalfelonies,theactoromissionoftheoffenderismalicious.InthelanguageofArt.3,theactisperformed
withdeliberateintent(withmalice).Theoffender,inperformingtheactorinincurringtheomission,hastheintention
tocauseaninjuryto another. In culpable felonies, the act or omission of the offender is notmalicious.Theinjury
caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed
without malice." (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939). As stated in Art. 3, the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence,lackofforesightorlackofskill.34
InthePetitionatbar,thisCourtcannot,ingoodconscience,attributetopetitionerCalimutananymaliciousintentto
injure,muchlesstokill,thevictimCantreandintheabsenceofsuchintent,thisCourtcannotsustaintheconviction
ofpetitionerCalimutanfortheintentionalcrimeofhomicide,asrenderedbytheRTCandaffirmedbytheCourtof
Appeals. Instead, this Court finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of
recklessimprudenceresultinginhomicideunderArticle365oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Article365oftheRevisedPenalCodeexpresslyprovidesforthedefinitionofrecklessimprudence
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material
damageresultsbyreasonofinexcusablelackofprecautiononthepartofthepersonperformingorfailingtoperform
such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and
othercircumstancesregardingpersons,timeandplace.
Thereareseveralcircumstances,discussedinthesucceedingparagraphs,thatdemonstratepetitionerCalimutans
lackofintenttokillthevictimCantre,andconversely,thatsubstantiatetheviewofthisCourtthatthedeathofvictim
Cantre was a result of petitioner Calimutans reckless imprudence. The RTC and the Court of Appeals may have
failedtoappreciate,orhadcompletelyoverlooked,thesignificanceofsuchcircumstances.
ItshouldberememberedthatthemeetingofthevictimCantreandwitnessSaano,ontheonehand,andpetitioner
CalimutanandhishelperBulalacao,ontheother,wasachanceencounterasthetwopartieswereontheirwayto
different destinations. The victim Cantre and witness Saano were on their way home from a drinking spree in
Crossing Capsay, while petitioner Calimutan and his helper Bulalacao were walking from the market to Crossing
Capsay. While the evidence on record suggests that a running grudge existed between the victim Cantre and

Bulalacao,itdidnotestablishthattherewaslikewiseanexistinganimositybetweenthevictimCantreandpetitioner
Calimutan.
1avvphil.net

Inbothversionsoftheeventsof04February1996submittedbytheprosecutionandthedefense,itwasthevictim
Cantre who was the initial aggressor. He suddenly punched Bulalacao, the helper and companion of petitioner
Calimutan,whentheymetontheroad.TheattackofthevictimCantrewasswiftandunprovoked,whichspurred
petitionerCalimutanintoresponsiveaction.GiventhatthisCourtdismissestheclaimofpetitionerCalimutanthatthe
victimCantrewasholdingaknife,itdoestakeintoaccountthatthevictimCantrewasconsiderablyolderandbigger,
at26yearsofageandwithaheightoffivefeetandnineinches,comparedtoBulalacao,theboyheattacked,who
was only 15 years old and stood at about five feet. Even with his bare hands, the victim Cantre could have hurt
Bulalacao.PetitionerCalimutansoughtonlytoprotectBulalacaoandtostoptheassaultofthevictimCantreagainst
thelatterwhenhepickedupastoneandthrewitatthevictimCantre.Thestonewasreadilyavailableasaweapon
to petitioner Calimutan since the incident took place on a road. That he threw the stone at the back of the victim
CantredoesnotautomaticallyimplytreacheryonthepartofpetitionerCalimutanasitishighlyprobablethatinthe
midstofthefray,hethrewthestonerashlyandimpulsively,withnoregardastothepositionofthevictimCantre.
WhenthevictimCantrestoppedhisaggressionafterbeinghitbythestonethrownbypetitionerCalimutan,thelatter
alsodesistedfromanyotheractofviolenceagainstthevictimCantre.
Theabovedescribedincidentcouldnothavetakenmorethanjustafewminutes.Itwasaverybriefscuffle,inwhich
thepartiesinvolvedwouldhardlyhavethetimetoponderuponthemostappropriatecourseofactiontotake.With
this in mind, this Court cannot concur in the declaration made by the Court of Appeals that petitioner Calimutan
threw the stone at the victim Cantre as a retaliatory act. It was evidently a swift and spontaneous reaction to an
unexpectedandunprovokedattackbythevictimCantreonBulalacao.ThatBulalacaowasalreadyabletorunaway
from the victim Cantre may have escaped the notice of the petitioner Calimutan who, under the pressure of the
circumstances,wasforcedtoactasquicklyaspossible.
The prosecution did not establish that petitioner Calimutan threw the stone at the victim Cantre with the specific
intent of killing, or at the very least, of harming the victim Cantre. What is obvious to this Court was petitioner
Calimutansintentiontodriveawaytheattackerwhowas,atthatpoint,thevictimCantre,andtoprotecthishelper
Bulalacaowhowas,asearlierdescribed,muchyoungerandsmallerinbuiltthanthevictimCantre.35
GrantingthatpetitionerCalimutanwasimpelledbyalawfulobjectivewhenhethrewthestoneatthevictimCantre,
hisactwascommittedwithinexcusablelackofprecaution.Hefailedtoconsiderthatastonethesizeofamansfist
could inflict substantial injury on someone. He also miscalculated his own strength, perhaps unaware, or even
completelydisbelieving,thathecouldthrowastonewithsuchforceastoseriouslyinjure,orworse,killsomeone,at
aquitelengthydistanceoftenmeters.
SinceitisirrefragablethatthestonethrownbypetitionerCalimutanatthevictimCantrewastheproximatecauseof
the latters death, despite being done with reckless imprudence rather than with malicious intent, petitioner
Calimutanremainscivillyliableforsuchdeath.ThisCourt,therefore,retainstherewardmadebytheRTCandthe
CourtofAppealstotheheirsofthevictimCantreoftheamountofP50,000.00ascivilindemnityforhisdeathand
anotherP50,000.00asmoraldamages.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 23306, dated 29 August 2001,
affirming the Decision of the RTC in Criminal Case No. 8184, dated 19 November 1998, is hereby MODIFIED.
PetitionerCalimutanisfoundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofrecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicide,under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period of 4
months of arresto mayor to a maximum period of two years and one day of prision correccional. Petitioner
CalimutanisfurtherORDEREDtopaytheheirsofthevictimCantretheamountofP50,000.00ascivilindemnityfor
thelattersdeathandP50,000.00asmoraldamages.
SOORDERED.
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AsscociateJustice

ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
AssociateJustice