Urbano v.

IAC
Gutierrez, Jr., J. | January 7, 1988
FACTS
In the morning of October 23, 1980, Filomeno URBANO went to his ricefield at Brgy. Anonang, San Fabian,
Pangasinan. He found the place where he stored his palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal
which had overflowed.
Urbano saw Marcelo JAVIER and Emilio ERFE cutting grass and he asked them who was responsible for the
opening of the irrigation canal. Javier admitted that he opened the canal so Urbano got angry and demanded
that Javier pay for his soaked palay.
o Urbano unsheathed his bolo and hacked Javier hitting him on the right palm of his hand
o Javier ran away but he was overtaken by Urbano who hacked him again hitting him on the left leg with
back portion of the bolo. Urbanos daughter then arrived and hugged him and prevented him from
further inflicting injury on Javier.
Javier was brought to Dr. Mario Meneses for treatment and thereafter to Dr. Guillermo Padilla, the rural health
physician, who conducted a medico-legal examination.
Eventually, Urbano and Javier entered into an amicable settlement in which Urbano promised to pay for the
medical expenses. On October 27, 1980, they both appeared before the police to formalize the said agreement.
At about 1:30am on November 14, 1980 (22 days after the injury was inflicted), Javier was rushed to the
hospital in a very serious condition he had lock jaw and was having convulsions.
o Dr. Mario Meneses found that it was caused by tetanus toxin. He noticed that healing wound on
Javiers palm which could have been infected by tetanus.
o Javier died on November 15, 1980.
An information was filed charging Urbano with the crime of homicide. After trial, the trial court found Urbano
guilty as charged. The conviction was affirmed by the IAC. Urbano filed a motion for reconsideration and/or
new trial based on an affidavit of the barangay captain.
o In his affidavit, the barangay captain stated that on November 5, 1980, he saw Javier catching fish in
the shallow irrigation canals with some companions.
o The motion was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON Urbano is criminally responsible for the death of Javier. NO, but at the very least he is guilty of
inflicting slight physical injuries.
HELD: The petition is GRANTED and the IAC decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Urbano is ACQUITTED of the
crime of homicide.
RATIO
This case involves the application of Article 4 of the RPC which provides that Criminal liability shall be incurred:
(1) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended [].
o Pursuant to this provision "an accused is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation
of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.
Urbano contends that the proximate cause of Javiers death was due to his own negligence, that Dr. Meneses
found no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier got infected with tetanus when after two weeks he returned to his
farm and tended his tobacco plants with his bare hands.
It is not clear from the record as to when the wound was infected.

Create PDF with PDF4U. If you wish to remove this line, please click here to purchase the full version.

o 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. (Vda.
De Bataclan v. Medina)
o Thus, the issue hinges on whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier
was wounded until his death which would exculpate Urbano from any liability for Javier's death.
As to the nature of tetanus, its incubation period ranges from 2 to 56 days. However, over 80% of patients
become symptomatic within 14 days. A short incubation period indicates severe disease, and when symptoms
occur within 2 or 3 days of injury the mortality rate approaches 100%.
o Mild tetanus is characterized by an incubation period of at least 14 days and an onset time of more than
6 days.
o Thus, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's body depends on the incubation period of the disease
Here, Javier was injured on October 23. After 22 days, or on November 14, he suffered the symptoms of
tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle spasms. The following day, November 15, he died.
o If the wound was in infected by tetanus germs on Oct. 23, it is medically more probable that Javier
should have been inflicted with mild tetanus (incubation period >14 days). Thus, the onset time should
have been more than 6 days.
o But Javier died the following day. Hence, the more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound
was inflicted by Urbano, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present. Consequently,
Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after 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.
o The medical findings, however, lead to a distinct possibility that the infection 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.
o There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection with tetanus
may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do
At the very least, however, Urbano is guilty of inflicting slight physical injuries. But his criminal liability was
wiped out by the compromise agreement entered into with Javier.
On final note, the discussion on proximate cause and remote cause is limited to the criminal aspects of this
unusual case. It does not necessarily follow that Urbano is also free of civil liability.

Create PDF with PDF4U. If you wish to remove this line, please click here to purchase the full version.