THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE)

(ACCUSED-APPELLANT)

VS.

DOMINGO URAL

L-30801 MARCH 27 1974

J. AQUINO

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE

CFI OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR

FACTS:
-

Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a policeman inside the
jail where he was boxing prisoner Napola (who was imprisoned for being
drunk). When Napola fell to the ground he U kicked him and poured some
liquid on N and then ignited Ns body.
Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he sustained 2 nd degree
burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face and one half of the body
including the back. She also testified that without any medical intervention,
the burns would have caused death
Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated burn as the cause of
death.
During the trial, the prosecutors failed to present the detention prisoners who
saw the burning of Napola as witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased
Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and was ordered to pay for costs

ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
-

TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder.

Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he heard a scream for
help from Napola whose shirt was in flames when found by him, he removed
the shirt, but did not summon the doctor because he thought that the burns
were not serious.
o SC: this statement cannot prevail over the testimony of Alberio
o This statement does not prove that he was not the one who burned
Napola, at most this could only mean that he was alarmed by the
consequences of his evil act
Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying that he was not
listed as a prosecution witness and that he was convicted of murder in the
past
o Wouldnt preclude him from being a credible witness.
o Since there was no police investigation (accused a police officer), the
investigation that ensued was done by a special counsel of the fiscals
office. A possible explanation of alberio not being listed at first.
o The statements of the witnesses for the defense were not inconsistent
with that of Alberios.
Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in Alberios testimony.
The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater than what was
intended).
o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1).

TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating circumstance that the

offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed
No intent to kill but only to maltreat the drunk napola who might
have been making a nuisance of himself
He realized the fearful consequence of his felonious act, he
allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal
dispensary
Since the mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance, TC
correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium
period of the penalty for murder.
o

DECISION: TC decision AFFIRMED.