Filomeno Urbano vs.
Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court and People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 72964 January 7, 1988
Facts:
On October 23, 1980, Filomeno Urbano was on his way to his ricefield. He found the place where he
stored palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion
to see what happened, and there he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efren cutting grass, in which
Javier admitted that he was the one who opened the canal.
Urbano angered, hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo, and again on the leg with the back of the
bolo. Upon the advice of Felipe Solis, the barrio councilman, Antonio Erfe, Emilio Erfe, and Felipe
Erfe together with Javier went to the police station of San Fabian to report the incident, and was
brought to a physician as advised by Corporal Torio.
After Javier was treated by Dr. Meneses, he and his companions returned to Dr. Guillermo Padilla
who conducted a medico-legal examination. Dr. Padilla issued a medico-legal certificate which
certifies that the wound of Marcelo Javier was examined and found 1 incised wound 2 inches in length
at the upper portion of the lesser palmar prominence, right; and based on observation, the
incapacitation is from 7-9 days period and upon presentation of the wound only for medico-legal
examination, it was already previously treated by the other doctor.
On October 27, 1980, Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano paid P700 for the
medical expenses of Javier. On November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the hospital where he had
lockjaw and convulsions.
The doctor found the condition to be caused by tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound in his
palm. He died the following day. Urbano was charged with homicide and was found guilty both by the
trial court and on appeal by the Court of Appeals.
Urbano filed a motion for new trial based on the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who stated that he
saw the deceased catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals on November 5. The motion was
denied; hence, this petition.
Issue :
Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause of the latter’s death
Held :
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred.
The symptoms of tetanus appeared on the 22nd day after the hacking incident or more than 14 days
after the wound was caused. That at the time Javier’s wound was inflicted by the appellant, the
severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present. Therefore, Javier’s wound could have been
infected with tetanus after the hacking incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier’s
death, his wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he
died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. Since it is a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused
caused the victim’s death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical
findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an
efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The
infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
The decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of homicide.
