People of the Philippine Islands vs. Moldes

One who inflicts a dangerous wound with a lethal weapon remains criminally responsible for the resulting death even if the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment; self-defense is unavailing where the accused was the aggressor.

On the night of April 3, 1934, a dance was held in a private house in the barrio of Maya, municipality of Abuyog, Province of Leyte. The deceased was the master of ceremonies. Inocentes Moldes insisted on dancing out of turn and was reproved by the deceased. Moldes then went to the porch of the house and, with his bolo, began cutting down the decorations. He descended into the yard and challenged everyone to a fight. When this did not attract sufficient attention, he began chopping at the bamboo trees and repeated his challenge for a fight.

The deceased, who was unarmed, started down the stairs and spoke to Moldes in a friendly manner. As the deceased had about reached the ground, Moldes struck at him with his bolo, inflicting a wound on his left arm. The sanitary inspector described the wound on post mortem examination as a long incised wound located on the lower portion of the left arm, directed inwards downwards and extending as low as the anticubital fossa, cutting the inferior part of the biceps muscle and the branches of the brachial artery; it measured 2 inches long, 2 1/2 inches wide, and 1 1/2 inches deep. As the deceased fell to the ground, Moldes inflicted a slight wound in the back and ran away from the scene.

The wound was seen and treated the next morning by the sanitary inspector of Abuyog, but the deceased remained in the care of a local “curandero.” That treatment failed to stop the hemorrhage, and the deceased died on April 15, 1934.

The defense theory was that Moldes had been behaving at the dance, that the deceased was the aggressor, that the deceased struck him on the dance floor with a cane, and that when Moldes ran from the house the deceased followed him about 200 yards until they came to a creek where Moldes could not retreat further; there, while being attacked by the deceased with a cane and a bolo, Moldes succeeded in wrenching the bolo from the deceased and inflicted the wound in self-defense. The trial court did not believe the witnesses for the defense, and their testimony did not read as clear and convincing as that of the witnesses for the prosecution. During trial, counsel for the defense asked several questions as to the character and habits of the deceased, but the court sustained the objections of the fiscal.

• Intent and Self-Defense: Petitioner-appellant, through his attorney de oficio, urged that he did not intend to commit as serious a wound as was inflicted but struck only in the dark and in self-defense.
• Medical Treatment and Causation: Petitioner-appellant contended that if the deceased had secured proper surgical treatment, the wound would not have been fatal.
• Prejudicial Error: Petitioner-appellant urged that the trial court committed prejudicial error in sustaining the fiscal’s objections to defense counsel’s questions as to the character and habits of the deceased.

• Self-Defense and Intent: Whether appellant acted in self-defense or lacked intent to inflict as serious a wound as was inflicted when he struck the deceased with his bolo.
• Medical Treatment and Causation: Whether the absence of proper surgical treatment relieves appellant of responsibility for the death.
• Prejudicial Error: Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in sustaining the objections to questions about the character and habits of the deceased.

• Self-Defense and Intent: No. There was no element of self-defense; appellant was the aggressor, and one who resorts to a lethal weapon and strikes with the force used is presumed to realize the natural consequences of his act.
• Medical Treatment and Causation: No. The wound was dangerous and calculated to destroy or endanger life; the inflictor is not relieved even if the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment.
• Prejudicial Error: No. The contention need not be passed upon on the merits because the questions were not insisted upon at trial and no exception was taken to the rulings.

• Self-Defense and Intent: The defense version—that the deceased was the aggressor and that Moldes acted in self-defense—was rejected. The trial court did not believe the defense witnesses, and their testimony was not as clear and convincing as the prosecution’s. It was clear that there was no element of self-defense and that Moldes was the aggressor. The deceased was unarmed and had approached Moldes in a friendly manner when Moldes struck him with a bolo. Because one who resorts to the use of a lethal weapon and strikes another with the force that must have been used in this case must be presumed to realize the natural consequences of his act, the claim that Moldes did not intend so serious a wound did not exculpate him.
• Medical Treatment and Causation: The wound was dangerous: it was a long incised wound on the lower left arm, extending to the anticubital fossa, cutting the inferior part of the biceps muscle and the branches of the brachial artery, and measuring 2 inches long, 2 1/2 inches wide, and 1 1/2 inches deep. Although the wound was treated the next morning by the sanitary inspector, the deceased remained under a local “curandero”; the treatment failed to stop the hemorrhage and the deceased died on April 15, 1934. The general rule was applied: he who inflicts an injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment. The principle is that every person is held to contemplate and be responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts; if a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such manner as to put life in jeopardy, and death follows as a consequence of the felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes co-operated in producing the fatal result. Neglect of the wound or its unskillful and improper treatment, being themselves consequences of the criminal act that might naturally follow, must in law be deemed to have been among those in contemplation of the guilty party. A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard. In the outlying barrio where the assault took place, proper modern surgical service was not available. The Court cited 29 C.J. 1081, 13 R.C.L. 751-752, 22 L.R.A. New Series 841, and United States vs. Escalona (12 Phil. 54), which followed a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain adopting the same rule. Thus the contention was without merit.
• Prejudicial Error: The defense asked several questions during trial as to the character and habits of the deceased, and the fiscal’s objections were sustained. Appellant urged this was prejudicial error. It was not obvious that such questions were relevant to the issue then in question, and it was not necessary to pass upon the merits of the contention because the questions were not insisted upon at the trial and no exception was taken to the rulings of the court.

• Self-defense; aggressor — Self-defense cannot be successfully invoked by one who was the aggressor. In this case, the trial court’s factual findings established that Moldes was the aggressor when he struck the unarmed deceased with a bolo, and the Court therefore found no element of self-defense.
• Presumption of natural consequences from use of lethal weapon — When one resorts to the use of a lethal weapon and strikes another with the force that must have been used, it must be presumed that he realizes the natural consequences of his act. This presumption defeated the claim that Moldes did not intend to inflict so serious a wound.
• Dangerous wound and intervening medical treatment — He who inflicts an injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment. Every person is held to contemplate and be responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts; neglect of the wound or its unskillful and improper treatment may be deemed among those consequences contemplated by the guilty party. The Court applied this rule where the wound cut the biceps muscle and branches of the brachial artery and the victim died after treatment by a local “curandero” failed to stop the hemorrhage.
• Waiver of objection by failure to insist or except — An objection to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence is not reviewable where the questions were not insisted upon at trial and no exception was taken to the rulings. This disposed of the claimed prejudicial error concerning questions about the deceased’s character and habits.

• "It is clear that there is no element of self-defense in the case and that appellant was the aggressor. When one resorts to the use of a lethal weapon and strikes another with the force that must have been used in this case, it must be presumed that he realizes the natural consequences of his act." — This passage states the ratio rejecting self-defense and inferring intent from the use of a lethal weapon and the force employed.
• "that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment ... ." — This passage states the general rule on causation and intervening medical treatment, which the Court applied to hold that the inadequate care by a local curandero did not absolve Moldes.
• "It is not necessary to pass upon the merits of this contention, as such questions were not insisted upon at the trial, and no exception was taken to the rulings of the court." — This passage disposes of the claimed prejudicial error from the exclusion of character-and-habits questions on procedural grounds.

• United States vs. Escalona, 12 Phil. 54 — Cited as this Court’s precedent, following a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, adopting the same rule that one who inflicts a dangerous wound remains responsible even if death results from erroneous or unskillful medical treatment.

Avanceña, C.J.; Abad Santos, J.; Vickers, J.; Diaz, J.