People-vs-Villacorta G-R-No-186412

PEOPLE VS. VILLACORTA, G.R. No.
186412 (2011)
FACTS:
Villacorta was charged with the crime of murder.
Sometime in 2002, Villacorta, armed with a sharpened bamboo stick, with intent to kill, treachery and
evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and stabbed Danilo
Cruz, thereby inflicting serious wounds which caused immediate death. Upon arraignment, Villacorta
pleaded not guilty.
In the early morning of January, while Danilo Cruz was buying bread from the store of Cristina
Mendeja located in Navotas, Villacorta suddenly appeared out of nowhere and stabbed Cruz in the
left side of his body using a sharpened bamboo stick. Mendeja chased Villacorta but did not succeed
to catch him. When Mendeja returned to the store, her neighbor Aron was already tending the
wounds of Cruz, removing the bamboo stick out of his body.
Cruz was rushed to and treated as an out-patient at Tondo Medical Center. It was only after 22 days
that Cruz was admitted to San Lazaro Hospital for symptoms of severe tetanus infection, where he
died the following day. Dr. Belandres, Head of the Tetanus Department at the San Lazaro Hospital,
testified that, using Cruz’s medical chart and diagnosis, he was able to determine that Cruz died of
tetanus infection secondary to stab wound. The prosecution did not present evidence of the
emergency medical treatment Cruz received at the Tondo Medical Center, subsequent visits by Cruz
to Tondo Medical Center or any other hospital for follow-up medical treatment of his stab wound, or
Cruz’s activities within the 22 days.
RTC: Villacorta guilty of murder, qualified by treachery. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Danilo Cruz of P50,000 as civil indemnity plus the costs
of suit.
CA: Affirmed in toto the RTC judgment against Villacorta. Hence, this appeal before the SC.
ISSUE: Whether Villacorta should be convicted of murder?
HELD:
NO, only slight physical injuries.
The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. Proximate
cause is "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 SC is faced with the very same doubts as that in Urbano vs. IAC that compels it to set aside the
conviction of Villacorta for murder. There had been an interval of 22 days between the stabbing and
the date when Cruz was rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus
infection. If Cruz acquired severe tetanus from the stabbing, then the symptoms would have
appeared a lot sooner than 22 days later. As the Court noted in Urbano, severe tetanus infection has
a short incubation period, less than 14 days; and those that exhibit symptoms with 2-3 days from the
injury, have 100% mortality. Ultimately, we can only deduce that Cruz’s stab wound was merely the
remote cause, and its subsequent infection with tetanus might have been the proximate cause of
Cruz's death. The infection of Cruz’s stab wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later
than or between the time Cruz was stabbed to the time of his death.
Urbano v. IAC: Urbano appealed before the SC, alleging that when Javier’s wound was first
examined, the doctor did not find any tetanus infection and that Javier could have acquired tetanus
when he returned to work on his farm 2 weeks after sustaining his injury.
 The incubation period for tetanus and the length of time between the hacking incident and the
manifestation of severe tetanus created doubts in the mind of the Court that Javier acquired
severe tetanus from the hacking incident.
 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. The proof that the accused caused the victim's
death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however,
lead to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
Villacorta is not totally without criminal liability. Villacorta is guilty of slight physical injuries under
Article 266(1) of the RPC for the stab wound he inflicted. Although the charge is for murder, a finding
of guilt for the lesser offense of slight physical injuries may be made because the latter offense is
necessarily included in the former – the essential ingredients of slight physical injuries are part of
those constituting murder. We cannot hold Villacorta criminally liable for attempted or frustrated
murder because the prosecution was not able to establish Villacorta’s intent to kill. Also, there was no
evidence to establish that Cruz was incapacitated for labor and/or required medical attendance for
more than 9 days. Without such evidence, the offense is only slight physical injuries.
We still appreciate treachery as an aggravating circumstance, it being sufficiently alleged in the

Information and proved during trial. Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly or especially to ensure its
execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make.
DISPOSITIVE:
The CA decision affirming that of the RTC of Malabon is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new
judgment is entered finding Villacorta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES under Article 266 of the RPC, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of 30 days
arresto menor. Considering that Villacorta has been incarcerated beyond the period of the penalty
imposed, his immediate release is ordered. Villacorta is ordered to pay the heirs of Danilo Cruz moral
damages in the sum of P5,000.

People-vs-Villacorta G-R-No-186412

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People-vs-Villacorta G-R-No-186412

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People-vs-Villacorta G-R-No-186412

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS. VILLACORTA, G.R. No.

Villacorta was charged with the crime of murder.

ISSUE: Whether Villacorta should be convicted of murder?

NO, only slight physical injuries.

We still appreciate treachery as an aggravating circumstance, it being sufficiently alleged in the

You might also like