VOL.

453, MARCH 16, 2005 511

Quinto vs. Andres
*

G.R. No. 155791. March 16, 2005.

MELBA QUINTO, petitioner, vs. DANTE ANDRES and

RANDYVER PACHECO, respondents.

Actions; Criminal Procedure; When a criminal action is

instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.—Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The civil liability of such
person established in Articles 100, 102 and 103 of the Revised
Penal Code includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused,
and indemnification for consequential damages. When a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. With the
implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the
two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the
criminal action predominating the civil.
Same; Same; The prime purpose of the criminal action is to
punish the offender in order to deter him and others from
committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society,
to reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social
order; The sole purpose of the civil action is the restitution,
reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the
damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or
felonious act of the accused.—The prime purpose of the criminal
action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others
from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from
society, to reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain
social order. The sole purpose of the civil action is the restitution,
reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the
damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or
felonious act of the accused. While the prosecution must prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

512

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres

crime charged, it is required to prove the cause of action of the

private complainant against the accused for damages and/or
restitution.
Same; Same; Judgments; The civil action based on delict shall
be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in
the civil action that the act or omission from where the civil
liability may arise does not exist.—The extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed
extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the civil
action that the act or omission from where the civil liability may
arise does not exist.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; A person committing a
felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical
consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended—“natural” refers to an
occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events, while
“logical” means that there is a rational connection between the act
of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.—A person
committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and
logical consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. “Natural”
refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or
events, while “logical” means that there is a rational connection
between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or
damage. The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the
resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred. The proximate legal cause is that acting first
and producing the injury, either immediately, or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain
of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor.
Same; Same; Judicial Notice; It is of judicial notice that
nowadays persons have killed or committed serious crimes for no
reason at all.—It is of judicial notice that nowadays persons have
killed or committed serious crimes for no reason at all. However,
the absence of any ill-motive to kill the deceased is relevant and
admissible in evidence to prove that no violence was perpetrated
on the person of

513

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 513

Quinto vs. Andres

the deceased. In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of

any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the deceased
before or after the latter was invited to join them in fishing.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
David P. Briones for respondents.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

At around 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1995, eleven-year-old

Edison Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil, and his
playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was also about eleven years
old, were at Barangay San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac. They saw
respondents Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the
mouth of a drainage culvert. Andres and Pacheco invited1
Wilson to go fishing with them inside the drainage culvert.
Wilson assented. When Garcia saw that it was dark inside,
he opted to remain seated in a grassy area about 2 two
meters from the entrance of the drainage system.
Respondent Pacheco had a flashlight. He, along with
respondent Andres and Wilson, entered the drainage
system which was covered by concrete culvert about a
meter3 high and a meter wide, with water about a foot
deep. After a while, respondent Pacheco, who was4 holding
a fish, came out of the drainage system and left without
saying a word. Respondent Andres also came out, went
back inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson
who was already dead. Respondent

_______________

1 TSN, 2 May 1997, p. 23.

2 TSN, 13 January 1997, pp. 6-7.
3 Records, pp. 70-73. (Exhibits “D” to “D-3”).
4 Id., at p. 8.

514

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres
5

Andres laid the boy’s lifeless body down in the grassy area.
Shocked
6 at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled from the
scene. For his part, respondent Andres went to the house
of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson’s mother, and informed
her that her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed to 7 the
drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed her.
The cadaver of Wilson was buried without any autopsy
thereon having been conducted. The police authorities of
Tarlac, Tarlac, did not file any criminal complaint against
the respondents for Wilson’s death.
Two weeks thereafter, or on November 28, 1995,
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigators took
the sworn statements
8 of respondent Pacheco, Garcia and
petitioner Quinto. Respondent Pacheco alleged that he had
never been to the drainage system catching fish with
respondent Andres and Wilson. He also declared that he
saw Wilson already dead when he passed by the drainage
system while riding on his carabao.
On February 29, 1996, the cadaver of Wilson was
exhumed. Dr. Dominic Aguda of the NBI performed an
autopsy thereon at the cemetery and submitted his autopsy
report containing the following postmortem findings:

POSTMORTEM FINDINGS

Body in previously embalmed, early stage of decomposition,

attired with white long sleeves and dark pants and placed inside a
wooden coffin in a niche-apartment style.
Hematoma, 14.0 x 7.0 cms., scalp, occipital region.
Abrasion, 4.0 x 3.0 cms., right face, 5.0 x 3.0 cms., left forearm.

_______________

5 Id.
6 Id.
7 TSN, 6 June 1997, p. 18.
8 Records, p. 8. (Exhibit “A”).

515

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 515

Quinto vs. Andres

Laryngo—tracheal lumina—congested and edematous containing

muddy particles with bloody path.
Lungs—hyperinflated, heavy and readily pits on pressure;
section contains bloody froth.
Brain—autolyzed and liquefied.
Stomach—partly autolyzed.
CAUSE OF DEATH: 9 Asphyxia by drowning; traumatic head
injuries, contributory.

The NBI filed a criminal complaint for homicide against

respondents Andres and Pacheco in the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor, which found probable cause for
homicide by dolo against the two.
An Information was later filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Tarlac, Tarlac, charging the respondents
with homicide. The accusatory portion reads:

“That at around 8 o’clock in the morning of November 13, 1995, in

the Municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco y Suliven @ Randy,
conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, and
maul Wilson Quinto inside a culvert where the three were fishing,
causing Wilson Quinto to drown
10 and die.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

After presenting Garcia, the prosecution presented Dr.

Dominic Aguda, who testified on direct examination that
the hematoma at the back of the victim’s head and the
abrasion on the latter’s left forearm could have been caused
by a strong force coming from a blunt instrument or object.
The injuries in the larynx and trachea also indicated that
the victim died of drowning, as some muddy particles were
also found on the

_______________

9 Id., at p. 67.
10 Id., at p. 1.

516

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres

lumina of the larynx and trachea (“Nakahigop ng putik”).

Dr. Aguda stated that such injury could be caused when
11 a
person is put under water by pressure or by force. On
cross-examination, Dr. Aguda declared that the hematoma
on the scalp was caused by a strong pressure or a strong
force applied to the scalp coming from a blunt instrument.
He also stated that the victim could have fallen, and that
the occipital portion of his head could have hit a blunt
object.
Dr. Aguda also declared that the 14x7-centimeter
hematoma at the back of Wilson’s head could have
rendered the latter unconscious, and, if he was thrown in a
body of water, the boy could have died by drowning.
In answer to clarificatory questions made by the court,
the doctor declared that the 4x3-centimeter abrasion on the
right side of Wilson’s face could have also been caused by
rubbing against a concrete wall or pavement, or by contact
with a rough surface. He also stated that the trachea
region was full 12 of mud, but that there was no sign of
strangulation.
After the prosecution had presented its witnesses and
the respondents had admitted the pictures showing13 the
drainage system including the inside portions thereof, the
prosecution rested its case.
The respondents filed a demurrer to evidence which the
trial court granted on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence, per its Order dated January 28, 1998. It also held
that it could not hold the respondents liable for damages
because of the absence of preponderant evidence to prove
their liability for Wilson’s death.
The petitioner appealed the order to the Court of
Appeals (CA) insofar as the civil aspect of the case was
concerned. In her brief, she averred that—

_______________

11 TSN, 17 September 1997, pp. 5-7.

12 Id., at pp. 12-13.
13 Records, pp. 70-73. (Exhibits “D” to “D-3”).

517

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 517

Quinto vs. Andres

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AND

IN RULING THAT NO PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS
TO HOLD ACCUSED-APPELLEES CIVILLY 14LIABLE FOR THE
DEATH OF THE VICTIM WILSON QUINTO.
The CA rendered judgment affirming the assailed order of
the RTC on December 21, 2001. It ruled as follows:

The acquittal in this case is not merely based on reasonable doubt

but rather on a finding that the accused-appellees did not commit
the criminal acts complained of. Thus, pursuant to the above rule
and settled jurisprudence, any civil action ex delicto cannot
prosper. Acquittal in a criminal action bars the civil action arising
therefrom where the judgment of acquittal holds that the accused
did not commit the criminal acts imputed 15 to them. (Tan v.
Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672)

The petitioner filed the instant petition for review and

raised the following issues:

WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF RESPONDENTS’

CRIMINAL LIABILITY, LIKEWISE, CARRIES WITH IT THE
EXTINCTION OF THEIR CIVIL LIABILITY.

II

WHETHER OR NOT PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS

TO HOLD RESPONDENTS 16CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE
DEATH OF WILSON QUINTO.

The petitioner avers that the trial court indulged in mere

possibilities, surmises and speculations when it held that
Wilson died because (a) he could have fallen, his head
hitting

_______________

14 CA Rollo, p. 75.
15 Rollo, p. 59.
16 Id., at p. 15.

518

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres
the stones in the drainage system since the culvert was
slippery; or (b) he might have been bitten by a snake which
he thought was the prick of a fish fin, causing his head to
hit hard on the top of the culvert; or (c) he could have lost
consciousness due to some ailment, such as epilepsy. The
petitioner also alleges that the trial court erred in ruling
that the prosecution failed to prove any ill motive on the
part of the respondents to kill the victim, and in
considering that respondent Andres even informed her of
Wilson’s death.
The petitioner posits that the trial court ignored the
testimony of the Medico-Legal Expert, Dr. Aguda; the
nature, location and number of the injuries sustained by
the victim which caused his death; as well as the locus
criminis. The petitioner insists that the behavior of the
respondents after the commission of the crime betrayed
their guilt, considering that respondent Pacheco left the
scene, leaving respondent Andres to bring out Wilson’s
cadaver, while respondent Andres returned inside the
drainage system only when he saw Garcia seated in the
grassy area waiting for his friend Wilson to come out.
The petitioner contends that there is preponderant
evidence on record to show that either or both the
respondents caused the death of her son and, as such, are
jointly and severally liable therefor.
In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver
that since the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to
prove that they committed the crime of homicide and
caused the death of Wilson, they are not criminally and
civilly liable for the latter’s death.
The petition has no merit.
Every
17 person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable. The civil liability of such person established in
Articles 100, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code
includes restitu-

_______________

17 Article 100, Revised Penal Code.

519
 VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 519
Quinto vs. Andres

tion, reparation of the damage 18 caused, and indemnification

for consequential damages. When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives
the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately19

or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

With the implied institution of the civil action in the
criminal action, the two actions are merged into one
composite proceeding,20 with the criminal action
predominating the civil.
The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish
the offender in order to deter him and others from
committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from
society, to reform and21 rehabilitate him or, in general, to
maintain social order. The sole purpose of the civil action
is the restitution, reparation or indemnification of the
private offended party for the damage or injury he
sustained 22 by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the

accused. While the prosecution must prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged, it
is required to prove the cause of action of the private
complainant against the accused for damages and/or
restitution.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
the extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action
based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the civil action that the act or
omission
23 from where the civil liability may arise does not
exist.

_______________

18 Article 104, Revised Penal Code.

19 Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
20 Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December 13,
2004, 446 SCRA 166.
21 Ibid.
22 Id.
 23 Section 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

520

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres

Moreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable

for all the natural and logical consequences resulting
therefrom although the wrongful
24 act done be different from
that which he intended. “Natural” refers to an occurrence
in the ordinary course of human life or events, while
“logical” means that there is a rational connection between
the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the
resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
the result would not have occurred. The proximate legal
cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close25 causal connection with its immediate
predecessor.
There must be a relation of “cause and effect,” the cause
being the felonious act of the offender, the effect being the
resultant injuries and/or death of the victim. The “cause
and effect” relationship is not altered or changed because of
the preexisting conditions, such as the pathological
condition of the victim (las condiciones patologica del
lesionado); the predisposition of the offended party (la
predisposicion del ofendido); the physical condition of the
offended party (la constitucion fisica del herido); or the
concomitant or concurrent conditions, such as the
negligence or fault of the doctors (la falta de medicos para
sister al herido); or the conditions supervening the
felonious 26act such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or
gangrene.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
resulting injury when:

_______________
 24 Article 4, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code.
25 Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181 (1957).
26 Cuello Colon, Codigo Penal, 12 ed., 1968, pp. 335-336.

521

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 521

Quinto vs. Andres

(a) there is an active force that intervened between the

felony committed and the resulting injury, and the
active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
(b) the resulting
27 injury is due to the intentional act of
the victim.

If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a

manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a
consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its
nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other
causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The
offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his
delictual act caused,
28 accelerated or contributed to the death
of the victim. A different doctrine would tend to give
immunity to crime and to take away29 from human life a
salutary and essential safeguard. This Court has
emphasized that:

. . . Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the

uncertainties attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments
and injuries, it would be easy in many cases of homicide to raise a
doubt as to the immediate cause of death, and thereby to open a
wide door by which persons guilty 30of the highest crime might
escape conviction and punishment. . .
31

In People v. Quianzon, the Supreme Court held:

. . . The Supreme Court of Spain, in a Decision of April 3, 1879,

said in a case similar to the present, the following: Inasmuch as a
man is responsible for the consequences of his act—and in this
case, the physical condition and temperament of the offended
party nowise lessen the evil, the seriousness whereof is to be
judged, not by the violence of the means employed, but by the
result actually produced;

_______________

27 Cuello Colon, Doredo Penal, Vol. 1, p. 278.

28 People v. Cutura, 4 SCRA 663 (1962).
29 People v. Moldes, 61 Phil. 1 (1934).
30 Id., at p. 4.
31 62 Phil. 162 (1935).

522

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres

and as the wound which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased
was the cause which determined his death, without his being able
to counteract its effects, it is evident
32 that the act in question
should be qualified as homicide, etc.

In the present case, the respondents 33 were charged with

homicide by dolo. In People v. Delim, the Court delineated
the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused for homicide or murder:

In the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove the

corpus delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal act
and second, defendant’s agency in the commission of the act.
Wharton says that corpus delicti includes two things: first, the
objective; second, the subjective element of crimes. In homicide
(by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution is burdened to
prove: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that the
death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the
deceased and was not the result of accident, natural cause or
suicide; and (c) that defendant committed the criminal act or was
in some way criminally responsible for the act which produced the
death. To prove the felony of homicide or murder, there must be
incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the victim
was deliberately killed (with malice); in other words, that there
was intent to kill. Such evidence may consist inter alia in the use
of weapons by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of
wounds sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the
malefactors before, at the time or immediately after the killing of
the victim. If the victim dies because of a deliberate
34 act of the
malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.

Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the

prosecution or the private complainant is burdened to
adduce preponderance of evidence or superior weight of
evidence. Although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is
stronger than that presented by the defendant, he is not
entitled to a

_______________

32 Id., at pp. 168-169.

33 396 SCRA 386 (2003).
34 Id., at pp. 399-400.

523

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 523

Quinto vs. Andres

judgment if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his

cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of
his own evidence
35 and not upon the weakness of that of the
defendants.’
Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence
provides how preponderance of evidence is determined:

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.—In civil

cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his
case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
circumstance of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying,
their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which
they testify, the probability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the
same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
consider the number of witnesses, though 36 the preponderance is
not necessarily with the greater number.
In the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial court
and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant
evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the
respondents rest, i.e., that the petitioner has a cause of
action against the respondents for damages.
It bears stressing that the prosecution relied solely on
the collective testimonies of Garcia, who was not an
eyewitness, and Dr. Aguda.
We agree with the petitioner that, as evidenced by the
Necropsy Report of Dr. Dominic Aguda, the deceased
sustained a 14x7-centimeter hematoma on the scalp. But
as to how the deceased sustained the injury, Dr. Aguda was
equivocal. He

_______________

35 Francisco, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, 1997 ed., Vol.

VII, Part II, p. 431.
36 Rollo, p. 51.

524

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres

presented two possibilities: (a) that the deceased could

have been hit by a blunt object or instrument applied with
full force; or (b) the deceased could have slipped, fell hard
and his head hit a hard object:

COURT:
The Court would ask questions.
Q So it is possible that the injury, that is—the hematoma,
caused on the back of the head might be due to the
victim’s falling on his back and his head hitting a
pavement?
A Well, the 14x7-centimeter hematoma is quite extensive,
so if the fall is strong enough and would fall from a high
place and hit a concrete pavement, then it is possible.
Q Is it possible that if the victim slipped on a concrete
pavement and the head hit the pavement, the injury
 might be caused by that slipping?
A It is also possible.
Q So when the victim was submerged under water while
unconscious, it is possible that he might have taken in
some mud or what?
A Yes, Sir.
Q So it is your finding that the victim was submerged
while still breathing?
A Yes, Your Honor, considering that the finding on the
lung also would indicate that the 37victim was still alive
when he was placed under water.

The doctor also admitted that the abrasion on the right

side of the victim’s face could have been caused by rubbing
against a concrete wall or pavement:

Q The abrasion 4x3 centimeters on the right [side of the]

face, would it be caused by the face rubbing against a
concrete wall or pavement?

_______________

37 TSN, 17 September 1997, pp. 10-11.

525

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 525

Quinto vs. Andres

A Yes, Sir. Abrasion is usually caused by a contact of a

skin to a rough surface.
Q Rough surface?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q When you say that the trachea region was full of mud,
were there no signs that the victim was strangled?
38

A There was no sign of strangulation, Your Honor.

The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Dr. Aguda

that the deceased might have slipped, causing the latter to
fall hard and hit his head on the pavement, thus:

Q Could it be possible, Doctor, that this injury might have

been caused when the victim fell down and that portion
of the body or occipital portion hit a blunt object and
might have been inflicted as a result of falling down?
A If the fall . . . if the victim
39 fell and he hit a hard object,
well, it is also possible.

The trial court took into account the following facts:

Again, it could be seen from the pictures presented by the

prosecution that there were stones inside the culvert. (See Exhibit
“D” to “D-3”). The stones could have caused the victim to slip and
hit his head on the pavement. Since there was water on the
culvert, the portion soaked with water must be very slippery,
aside from the fact that the culvert is round. If the victim hit his
head and lost consciousness,40 he will naturally take in some
amount of water and drown.

The CA affirmed on appeal the findings of the trial court,

as well as its conclusion based on the said findings.

_______________

38 Id., at pp. 12-13.

39 Rollo, p. 43.
40 Ibid.

526

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres

We agree with the trial and appellate courts. The general

rule is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its
assessment of probative weight of the evidence of the
parties, and its conclusion anchored on such findings,
affirmed no less by the CA, are given conclusive effect by
this Court, unless the trial court ignored, misapplied or
misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which, if
considered, would change the outcome of the case. The
petitioner failed to show any justification to warrant a
reversal of the findings or conclusions of the trial and
appellate courts.
That the deceased fell or slipped cannot be totally
foreclosed because even Garcia testified that the drainage
culvert was dark, and that he himself was so afraid that he 41

refused to join respondents Andres and Pacheco inside.

Respondent Andres had no flashlight; only respondent
Pacheco had one.
Moreover, Dr. Aguda failed to testify and explain what
might have caused the abrasion on the left forearm of the
deceased. He, likewise, failed to testify whether the
abrasions on the face and left forearm of the victim were
made ante mortem or post mortem.
The petitioner even failed to adduce preponderance of
evidence that either or both the respondents hit the
deceased with a blunt object or instrument, and,
consequently, any blunt object or instrument that might
have been used by any or both of the respondents in hitting
the deceased.
It is of judicial notice that nowadays persons 42have killed
or committed serious crimes for no reason at all. However,
the absence of any ill-motive to kill the deceased is relevant
and admissible in evidence to prove that no violence was
perpetrated on the person of the deceased. In this case, the
petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the
part of either respondent to kill the deceased before or after
the latter was invited to join them in fishing. Indeed, the
petitioner

_______________

41 TSN, 2 May 1997, p. 17.

42 People v. Delim, supra.

527

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 527

Quinto vs. Andres

testified that respondent Andres used to go to their house

and play with her son before the latter’s death:
Q Do you know this Dante Andres personally?
A Not much but he used to go to our house and play with my son
after going from her mother who is gambling, Sir.
Q But you are acquainted with him, you know his face?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Will you please look around this courtroom and see if he is
around?
A (Witness is 43pointing to Dante Andres, who is inside the
courtroom.)

When the petitioner’s son died inside the drainage culvert,

it was respondent Andres who brought out the deceased.
He then informed the petitioner of her son’s death. Even
after informing the petitioner of the death of her son,
respondent Andres followed the petitioner on her way to
the grassy area where the deceased was:

Q Did not Dante Andres follow you?

A He went with me, Sir.
Q So when you went to the place where your son was lying,
Dante Andres was with you?
A No, Sir. When I was informed by Dante Andres that my son
was there at the culvert, I ran immediately. He [was] just left
behind and he just followed, Sir.
Q So when you reached the place where your son was lying down,
Dante Andres also came or arrived? 44

A It was only when we boarded the jeep that he arrived, Sir.

In sum, the petitioner failed to adduce preponderance of

evidence to prove a cause of action for damages based on
the deliberate acts alleged in the Information.

_______________

43 TSN, 6 June 1997, p. 8.

44 Id., at p. 18.

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quinto vs. Andres
 IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
DENIED for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga and

Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—Where the civil action is impliedly instituted

together with the criminal action, the actual damages
claimed by the offended parties are not included in the
computation of the filing fees—filing fees are to be paid
only if their items of damages such as moral, nominal,
temperate, or exemplary damages are alleged in the
complaint or information, or if they are not so alleged, shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment. (Manantan vs.
Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 387 [2001])
There is no prejudicial question if the civil and criminal
action can, according to law, proceed independently of each
other. (Samson vs. Daway, 434 SCRA 612 [2004])

——o0o——

529

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.