Wacoy vs. People

When two persons deliberately attack a single victim in a non-tumultuous manner, resulting in death, they are guilty of homicide under Article 249 of the RPC, not death caused in a tumultuous affray under Article 251; furthermore, Article 49 of the RPC applies only to error in personae (crime befalls different person) and not to praeter intentionem (unintended graver consequences), and the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated where external acts show the purpose was merely to maltreat rather than kill.

On April 11, 2004, at Bungis Ambongdolan, Tublay, Benguet, petitioners Guillermo Wacoy and James Quibac engaged in a physical altercation with Elner Aro. According to prosecution witness Edward Benito, who was eating corn at a nearby sari-sari store, he witnessed Wacoy kick the already sprawled Aro twice in the stomach and attempt to throw a rock at him, while Quibac subsequently punched Aro in the stomach causing him to collapse. Aro was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with blunt abdominal trauma and a perforated ileum, underwent surgery, but died the following day due to complications. The petitioners claimed that Aro was drunk and unruly, tripped and fell, and that they were merely defending themselves or pacifying the situation.

• On April 11, 2004, at around 3:00 p.m., at Bungis Ambongdolan, Tublay, Benguet, prosecution witness Edward Benito was eating corn at a sari-sari store when he heard a commotion nearby.
• Benito saw his cousin, victim Elner Aro, already sprawled on the ground near a nearby establishment.
• Benito witnessed petitioner Guillermo Wacoy kick Aro's stomach twice, after which Wacoy picked up a rock to throw at Aro but was restrained from doing so.
• As Aro stood up, petitioner James Quibac punched him on the stomach, causing Aro to collapse and cry in pain.
• Aro was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with "blunt abdominal trauma with injury to the jejunum" and was scheduled for operation.
• Medical examination revealed Aro sustained a perforation on his ileum (where small and large intestines meet) causing intestinal bleeding, and his abdominal peritoneum was filled with air and fluid contents from the bile.
• Aro suffered cardiac arrest during the operation, was revived through cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but lapsed into a coma after the operation.
• Due to financial constraints, Aro was taken out of the hospital against doctor's orders and died the next day.
• Aro's death certificate indicated the cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest antecedent to a perforated ileum and generalized peritonitis secondary to mauling."
• An autopsy performed on Aro's remains revealed the cause of death as "rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt traumatic injuries."
• Petitioners denied the charge, claiming that while playing pool they saw Aro drunk and lying down, that Aro became unruly and kicked the pool table leg, that Wacoy shouted and picked up a stone but Quibac pacified him, that Aro almost hit Wacoy with a piece of wood, that Wacoy ran but Aro chased him and tripped and fell, and that Quibac merely pacified a fight between Wacoy and Quiniquin Carias (Aro's companion).

• Wacoy argued that they only intended to inflict slight physical injuries on Aro, and therefore should be penalized only for slight physical injuries in its maximum period pursuant to Article 49 of the RPC, which applies when the crime committed is different from that intended.
• They contended that the RTC correctly found them guilty only of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251, not Homicide, because conspiracy was not proven and the prosecution failed to establish the extent and effect of the injuries they personally inflicted that led to Aro's death.

• The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the CA correctly modified the conviction to Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC because the evidence clearly established that only two persons attacked one defenseless victim, not a tumultuous affray involving several persons.
• The prosecution argued that witness Edward Benito's testimony was credible, being simple, direct, and straightforward, and that his relationship to the victim as cousin did not affect his credibility absent any showing of ill motive.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioners guilty of Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC instead of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 of the RPC.
  • Whether Article 49 of the RPC (penalty for felony committed different from that intended) applies to the case, warranting imposition of the penalty for slight physical injuries in its maximum period.
  • Whether the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Article 13(3) of the RPC was properly appreciated.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that petitioners should be convicted of Homicide under Article 249, not Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251. The elements of Article 251 require several persons quarreling and assaulting each other in a confused and tumultuous manner where the killer cannot be ascertained. Here, only two petitioners attacked one defenseless victim, taking turns inflicting punches and kicks. There was no confusion, tumultuous quarrel, or reciprocal aggression.
  • The Court rejected the application of Article 49 of the RPC. Article 49 applies only where the crime committed is different from that intended and where the felony committed befalls a different person (error in personae). It does not apply to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act (praeter intentionem). In crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all consequences thereof. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.
  • The Court upheld the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Article 13(3) of the RPC. Since intention is a mental process, it must be judged by the accused's conduct and external overt acts. The absence of evidence showing that apart from kicking and punching Aro on the stomach something else had been done evinced the purpose of merely maltreating or inflicting physical harm, not ending Aro's life.
  • The penalty for Homicide was properly imposed in its minimum period due to the presence of this mitigating circumstance, resulting in an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
  • The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 each to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, while temperate damages of P25,000.00 and interest of 6% per annum were retained.

• Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray (Article 251 RPC) — Defined as a situation where several persons, not composing organized groups, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner resulting in death where the actual killer cannot be ascertained but the persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified. The Court applied this to distinguish why the case did not qualify: there were only two attackers and one victim, with no tumultuous or reciprocal aggression.
• Error in Personae vs. Praeter Intentionem — Article 49 of the RPC applies only to error in personae (where the victim is different from the intended victim) and not to praeter intentionem (where the consequence is graver than intended). The Court applied this to reject petitioners' argument that they should be penalized only for slight physical injuries.
• Proximate Cause in Crimes Against Persons — In crimes of personal violence, the law holds the aggressor responsible for all consequences of his felonious act; intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death results from deliberate acts.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Lack of Intent to Commit So Grave a Wrong — Under Article 13(3) RPC, this circumstance is appreciated when judged by the accused's external overt acts, the purpose was merely to maltreat rather than to kill.

• "In cases of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof."
• "Article 49 should only apply where the crime committed is different from that intended and where the felony committed befalls a different person (error in personae); and not to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act (praeter intentionem)."
• "If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed."

• People v. Arguta — Cited for the principle that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction to examine records, revise judgments, and increase penalties.
• People v. Julianda, Jr. — Cited for the elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 of the RPC.
• Sison v. People — Cited for the definition of tumultuous affray as a quarrel between several persons engaging in a confused and tumultuous affray where the author cannot be ascertained.
• Villanueva v. Caparas — Cited for the elements of Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC.
• People v. Tomotorgo — Cited for the distinction that Article 49 applies only to error in personae, not praeter intentionem.
• Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the rule that if the victim dies because of a deliberate act, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.
• United States v. Gloria — Cited for the principle that in crimes of personal violence, the law looks to material results and holds aggressor responsible for all consequences.
• People v. Regato — Cited for the principle that intention must be judged by conduct and external overt acts in determining the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

• Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Homicide; relevant as the provision under which petitioners were ultimately convicted.
• Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray; relevant as the provision under which the RTC convicted petitioners but which the CA and SC rejected.
• Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code — Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is different from that intended; relevant as petitioners argued for its application but the Court rejected it.
• Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code — Mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong; relevant as it was appreciated in favor of petitioners.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Relevant for the determination of the proper indeterminate penalty imposed.