Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 927 views

    1 Calimutan v. People - G.R. No. 152133

    Uploaded by

    eiram23
    1) Rollie Calimutan was charged with homicide after throwing a stone at Cantre during a brief altercation in order to protect Calimutan's younger helper, Bulalacao, who was being punched by Cantre. Cantre died the next day from internal bleeding caused by a lacerated spleen. 2) The Supreme Court found that Calimutan did not have malicious intent to injure or kill Cantre when throwing the stone. Calimutan acted swiftly without time to consider alternatives, to protect Bulalacao from an unexpected attack. 3) The Court ruled that Calimutan was guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, not an intentional felony,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1 Calimutan v. People - G.R. No. 152133

    Uploaded by

    eiram23
    927 views1 page
    1) Rollie Calimutan was charged with homicide after throwing a stone at Cantre during a brief altercation in order to protect Calimutan's younger helper, Bulalacao, who was being punched by Cantre. Cantre died the next day from internal bleeding caused by a lacerated spleen. 2) The Supreme Court found that Calimutan did not have malicious intent to injure or kill Cantre when throwing the stone. Calimutan acted swiftly without time to consider alternatives, to protect Bulalacao from an unexpected attack. 3) The Court ruled that Calimutan was guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, not an intentional felony,

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Rollie Calimutan was charged with homicide after throwing a stone at Cantre during a brief altercation in order to protect Calimutan's younger helper, Bulalacao, who was being punched by Cantre. Cantre died the next day from internal bleeding caused by a lacerated spleen. 2) The Supreme Court found that Calimutan did not have malicious intent to injure or kill Cantre when throwing the stone. Calimutan acted swiftly without time to consider alternatives, to protect Bulalacao from an unexpected attack. 3) The Court ruled that Calimutan was guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, not an intentional felony,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    927 views1 page

    1 Calimutan v. People - G.R. No. 152133

    Uploaded by

    eiram23
    1) Rollie Calimutan was charged with homicide after throwing a stone at Cantre during a brief altercation in order to protect Calimutan's younger helper, Bulalacao, who was being punched by Cantre. Cantre died the next day from internal bleeding caused by a lacerated spleen. 2) The Supreme Court found that Calimutan did not have malicious intent to injure or kill Cantre when throwing the stone. Calimutan acted swiftly without time to consider alternatives, to protect Bulalacao from an unexpected attack. 3) The Court ruled that Calimutan was guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, not an intentional felony,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    152133, February 9, 2006


    ROLLIE CALIMUTAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
    FACTS:
    Calimutan was charged with the crime of homicide. On 04 February 1996, Cantre
    harboring a grudge against Bulalacao, suddenly punched the latter. Calimutan in
    order to protect his helper Bulalacao who was much younger and smaller in built
    than the victim Cantre picked up a stone as big as a fist and threw the same to
    Cantre. The stone hit Cantre at the left side of his back. After which Saano (who
    was then with Cantre) was able to convinced both Cantre and Calimutan to stop
    fighting and go home. The following day Cantre died. An autopsy of the body of the
    victim Cantre was conducted by Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez of NBI. In his testimony
    before the RTC, Dr. Mendez affirmed the contents of his exhumation and autopsy
    report. He explained that the victim Cantre suffered from an internal hemorrhage
    and there was massive accumulation of blood in his abdominal cavity due to his
    lacerated spleen. The laceration of the spleen can be caused by any blunt
    instrument, such as a stone. Hence, Dr. Mendez confirmed the possibility that the
    victim Cantre was stoned to death by petitioner Calimutan.
    ISSUE: Whether or not an accused, who in trying to stop an altercation, inflicted a
    fatal blow to the victim may be held liable for an intentional felony.
    HELD:
    The Supreme Court held in the negative. In intentional felonies, the act or omission
    of the offender is malicious. In the language of Art. 3, the act is performed with
    deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in performing the act or in incurring
    the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another. In culpable felonies,
    the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury 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, lack of foresight or lack of
    skill.
    In the Petition at bar, this Court cannot attribute to petitioner Calimutan any
    malicious intent to injure, much less to kill, the victim Cantre. Instead, this Court
    finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of
    reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised
    Penal Code. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing
    or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable
    lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such
    act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
    physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place
    (Article 365, RPC).
    The above-described incident could not have taken more than just a few minutes. It
    was a very brief scuffle, in which the parties involved would hardly have the time to
    ponder upon the most appropriate course of action to take. 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 unexpected and
    unprovoked attack by the victim Cantre on Bulalacao. That Bulalacao was
    already able to run away from the victim Cantre may have escaped the notice of the
    petitioner Calimutan who, under the pressure of the circumstances, was forced to
    act as quickly as possible.

    You might also like