Case Digest: Amado Alvarado Garcia vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 171951
28 August 2009
FACTS:
The Fozes were having a drinking spree at their apartment when Chy asked them to quiet down to which Garcia commented that Chy was being arrogant and that one day he would lay a hand hand on him. Two days later, the group decided decided to drink at a store owned by Chy’s sister, Esquibel. Chy was about to come out of his house and upon being being summoned, Garcia suddenly punched him. Chy continued to parry the blows and when he found an opportunity to escape, he ran home and phoned his wife to call the police regarding the mauling. He also complained of difficulty in breathing. He was found later later unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating. Cause of death is heart attack to which Garcia appeals that the injuries he caused were not as violent in nature as to have caused caused the death of Chy. Garcia pleaded not guilty to the crime of homicide. homicide. The autopsy doctor confirms that the boxing and the striking of the bottle beer on the victim vi ctim could not have caused any direct physical effect to cause the heart attack if the the victim’s heart is healthy. What could have caused said heart attack is the victims emotions concerning the violence inflicted upon him.
ISSUE:
Whether the circumstance of having no intention to co mmit so grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated RULING:
The circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the death of the vi ctim does not exempt him from criminal liability. Since he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal C ode. Nevertheless, said circumstance must be appreciated in favour favour of the petitioner. The fact that the physical injuries he inflicted on the victim could not have naturally and logically caused the actual death of the victim, if the latter’s heart is in good condition. Considering this mitigating circumstance, imposable penalty should be in the minimum peri od, that is, reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial court properly imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of recl usion temporal as maximum.
