Case Digest: leaking gasoline.

The Court ruled that the negligence of the

driver and conductor, who failed to warn the rescuers about the
Case Title:
gasoline leak, contributed to the fatal incident.
Salud Villanueva Vda. de Bataclan, et al. vs. Mariano Medina
G.R. No. L-10126 | October 22, 1957 | En Banc The Court awarded the plaintiffs P6,000 as compensation for
damages, including compensatory and moral damages, and
Facts:
P800 as attorney's fees. The decision emphasized the
On September 13, 1952, at around 2:00 AM, a bus operated by
extraordinary diligence required of common carriers under the
Medina Transportation, driven by Conrado Saylon, suffered a
Civil Code, specifically citing Articles 1733, 1755, 1756, 1759,
tire blowout while traveling in Imus, Cavite. The bus, which
and 1763.
was speeding, lost control, zig-zagged, and eventually
overturned into a canal. Several passengers were trapped Ratio Decidendi:
inside, including Juan Bataclan. After the accident, nearby The Court clarified that the proximate cause is that which, in a
residents attempted to assist, bringing a lighted torch, which natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
ignited gasoline leaking from the overturned bus. A fire intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
ensued, burning the bus and killing the trapped passengers. result would not have occurred. The overturning of the bus set
in motion a chain of events that naturally led to the fire,
The widow of Juan Bataclan, Salud Villanueva, along with
making it the proximate cause of the passengers' deaths. The
their minor children, filed a lawsuit against Mariano Medina,
common carrier, through its agents, failed to exercise the
owner of the bus, seeking compensatory, moral, and exemplary
extraordinary diligence required by law, making it liable for the
damages.
damages claimed by the plaintiffs.
Issue:
The decision highlighted the importance of safety and diligence
Was the proximate cause of Juan Bataclan's death the
in the operation of public utility vehicles and the need for
overturning of the bus, and is the common carrier liable for
accountability in cases of negligence leading to injury or death.
damages?

Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court held that the proximate cause of Juan
Bataclan's death was the overturning of the bus, which led to
the fire that ensued when rescuers brought a torch near the

1
 Timeline of Events:
What is the case all about?
1. September 13, 1952 - Shortly after midnight:
The Bataclan case involves a tragic accident where a bus ○ Bus Departs: Bus No. 30, owned by Mariano
operated by Medina Transportation overturned after a tire Medina and operated by Medina Transportation,
blowout, trapping several passengers inside. Despite rescue departs from Amadeo, Cavite, bound for Pasay
attempts, a fire ignited by a torch brought by a rescuer City. The bus is driven by its regular chauffeur,
caused the death of four trapped passengers, including Juan Conrado Saylon, and carries approximately 18
Bataclan. The case centers on the legal responsibility of the passengers, including the driver and conductor.
bus company for the deaths and the damages sought by the ○ Passenger Arrangement: Juan Bataclan is
victims' families. seated beside the driver on the right, Felipe Lara
to the right of Bataclan, an unidentified Visayan
How is the case related to the doctrine of proximate passenger on the left side of the driver, and
cause? Natalia Villanueva is seated behind these three
passengers.
The Bataclan case is directly related to the doctrine of
proximate cause because the court had to determine whether
2. Around 2:00 AM - While the bus is in Imus, Cavite:
the bus company was responsible for the deaths caused by
○ Tire Blowout: One of the front tires of the bus
the fire. The Supreme Court ruled that the proximate cause
bursts. The bus begins to zig-zag uncontrollably
was the bus overturning, which set off a foreseeable chain of
on the road.
events leading to the fire. Therefore, the bus company's
○ Bus Overturns: The bus travels approximately
negligence in causing the accident made them liable for the
150 meters after the blowout before it veers off
resulting deaths.
the road and falls into a canal or ditch on the
right side, turning turtle (completely
overturning).
○ Passengers Trapped: Some passengers manage
to escape the overturned bus. However, four
passengers, including Juan Bataclan, Felipe
Lara, the Visayan passenger, and Natalia

2
 Villanueva, are trapped inside. 5. Later that day - Removal of bodies:
○ Charred Bodies Recovered: The charred
3. Immediately after the accident: bodies of the four passengers trapped inside the
○ Calls for Help: Passengers who escaped, along bus, including Juan Bataclan, are recovered and
with the driver and conductor, call for help from identified.
nearby houses. The trapped passengers inside
the bus, including Bataclan and Lara, are heard 6. Subsequent Legal Action:
groaning and shouting for assistance. ○ Lawsuit Filed: Salud Villanueva, the widow of
○ Rescue Attempts: It is not clear from the Juan Bataclan, files a lawsuit on behalf of
evidence whether any passengers or the bus herself and her five minor children against
crew attempted to rescue those trapped inside Mariano Medina, seeking P87,150 in
the bus. However, calls for help are heard by compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages,
residents nearby. as well as attorney's fees.
○ Trial Court Ruling: The Court of First Instance
4. Approximately 30 minutes after the accident: of Cavite awards P1,000 in damages to the
○ Rescuers Arrive: About ten men from the plaintiffs, P600 as attorney's fees, and P100 for
neighborhood arrive at the scene, one of them the value of merchandise lost in the fire. Both
carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo, which parties appeal the decision.
is fueled with petroleum.
○ Fire Breaks Out: As the rescuers approach the 7. Appellate Review:
overturned bus, the lighted torch ignites ○ Appeal to Supreme Court: The Court of
gasoline that had leaked from the bus’s fuel Appeals refers the case to the Supreme Court
tank. The gasoline had spread over and around due to the amount involved.
the bus.
○ Bus Burns: A fierce fire engulfs the bus, 8. October 22, 1957 - Supreme Court Decision:
burning it completely. The four passengers ○ Proximate Cause Established: The Supreme
trapped inside, including Juan Bataclan, are Court rules that the proximate cause of the
killed in the blaze. deaths was the overturning of the bus, which led
to the fire. The Court finds negligence on the

3
 part of the driver and conductor, who failed to
warn the rescuers about the gasoline leak.
○ Damages Awarded: The Supreme Court
increases the damages awarded to the plaintiffs
to P6,000, including compensatory, moral, and
exemplary damages, and raises the attorney's
fees to P800.
○ Accountability Emphasized: The Court
emphasizes the extraordinary diligence required
of common carriers and orders that a copy of the
decision be furnished to the Department of
Justice and the Provincial Fiscal of Cavite to
ensure the criminal prosecution of the negligent
driver is pursued.

4
Understanding Proximate Cause Through the Bataclan The Supreme Court ruled that the proximate cause of the
Case: deaths was the overturning of the bus, not just the fire. Here's
why:
The Bataclan case is closely related to the legal concept of
proximate cause, which is an essential principle in 1. Chain of Events: The tire blowout and the overturning
determining legal liability in negligence cases. To explain it in of the bus set off a chain of events that led directly to
simple terms, proximate cause is about finding out what really the fire. If the bus hadn't overturned, the gasoline
caused an injury or damage, and whether it was close enough wouldn’t have leaked, and there wouldn’t have been a
to the actions of the person being sued (in this case, the bus fire in the first place.
company) to hold them responsible. 2. Foreseeable Risk: It was foreseeable (something that
What Happened in the Bataclan Case? could have been anticipated) that if a bus overturned,
gasoline might leak. It was also foreseeable that
In this case, a bus operated by Medina Transportation suffered rescuers might bring a light source, like a torch, which
a tire blowout, causing the bus to lose control, veer off the could ignite the gasoline.
road, and overturn. Some passengers managed to escape, but a 3. Negligence: The bus driver and conductor were
few, including Juan Bataclan, were trapped inside. While they negligent because they didn't warn the rescuers about
were trapped, nearby residents came to help, but one of them the gasoline leak, even though they should have known
brought a torch that accidentally ignited gasoline leaking from it was a danger. Their failure to act on this foreseeable
the overturned bus. This caused a fire that killed the trapped risk directly contributed to the fire that killed the
passengers. passengers.

How Does This Relate to Proximate Cause?

Why Is This Important?
Proximate cause is about figuring out whether the injury or
damage was a direct result of something the defendant did (or The court decided that the initial accident (the bus overturning)
didn’t do). In this case, the question was: "What really caused was the real start of everything that happened afterward,
the deaths of Juan Bataclan and the others trapped in the bus? including the fire. Even though the fire was the immediate
Was it the fire that started when the torch ignited the gasoline, cause of death, it wouldn't have happened if the bus hadn’t
or was it something that happened before?" overturned. So, the bus company was held responsible because

5
the accident (which they were negligent in preventing) was the
starting point for the tragic outcome.

This case shows how proximate cause works in deciding who is

legally responsible for an accident. It’s not just about what
happened last (the fire), but about what set the whole thing in
motion (the bus overturning) and whether it was reasonably
foreseeable that such a chain of events could happen. The court
decided that it was, and therefore, the bus company was liable.

6
Case Digest: Rodel Urbano v. People of the Philippines Issues:

G.R. No. 182750 | January 20, 2009 1. Whether the CA erred in affirming Urbano's conviction
for homicide.
Facts:
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of sufficient
Rodel Urbano was charged with homicide for the death of provocation and lack of intent to commit so grave a
Brigido Tomelden following a fistfight on September 28, 1993, wrong should be appreciated in favor of Urbano.
in Lingayen, Pangasinan. The altercation occurred after both
men, who had been drinking, exchanged insults and blows. Ruling:
Urbano landed a "lucky punch" on Tomelden, causing him to The Supreme Court partly granted Urbano's petition.
collapse and subsequently suffer from head injuries. Despite
receiving medical treatment, Tomelden died on October 10, 1. Homicide Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt:
1993. The autopsy revealed that the cause of death was ○ The Court affirmed that the punch delivered by
"cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral concussion Urbano was the proximate cause of Tomelden’s
with resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident." death, despite Tomelden dying 12 days after the
incident. The medical evidence and witness
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Urbano guilty of
testimony established a direct link between
homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term of
Urbano’s act and the fatal outcome.
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal
2. Mitigating Circumstances:
as maximum. Urbano appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA),
○ The Court recognized two mitigating
which affirmed the conviction but modified the decision by
circumstances: (1) sufficient provocation by the
awarding P50,000 in moral damages to Tomelden's heirs.
victim, who insulted and challenged Urbano to a
fistfight, and (2) lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong, as evidenced by Urbano's
attempt to avoid the confrontation and his
assistance in bringing Tomelden to medical care
after the fight.

7
 ○ Considering these mitigating circumstances, the
Court applied Article 64 of the Revised Penal What is the Case All About?
Code, which mandates the imposition of the
next lower penalty. Urbano's sentence was thus The Urbano v. People of the Philippines case involves
reduced to an indeterminate prison term of two Francisco Urbano, who was charged with homicide after
punching Brigido Tomelden during a confrontation.
(2) years and four (4) months of prision
Tomelden later died from a brain hemorrhage, which was
correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and argued to have resulted from the injuries he sustained in the
one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. fight. The case centers on whether Urbano's actions directly
caused Tomelden's death.
Disposition:
How is the Case Related to the Doctrine of Proximate
The Supreme Court modified the CA's decision by reducing Cause?
Urbano’s sentence. The decision to award civil indemnity and
The case is related to the doctrine of proximate cause
moral damages to Tomelden’s heirs was affirmed. because the court had to determine whether Urbano's punch
was the direct cause of Tomelden's death. Proximate cause
focuses on whether an action is closely enough connected to
an injury to hold someone legally responsible. In this case,
the court found that Urbano's punch was the proximate cause
of Tomelden's death, leading to Urbano's conviction.

8
Timeline of Events some of which hit him despite Urbano's
attempts to evade.
September 28, 1993 ○ Urbano, attempting to defend himself, retaliates
by punching Tomelden, landing what is
● Afternoon:
described as a "lucky punch" on Tomelden's
○ Rodel Urbano, Brigido Tomelden, and several
face.
others, including Dominador Navarro
○ Tomelden topples down but avoids hitting his
(Chairperson of Lingayen Water District
head on the ground as their companions catch
[LIWAD]), attend a picnic in Bugallon,
him.
Pangasinan.
○ The punch causes Tomelden’s nose to bleed and
○ The group orders goat's meat and beer at a
renders him unconscious.
restaurant in Bugallon.
○ Brigido Tomelden, seated separately from the
● Evening:
group, consumes a total of 17 bottles of beer.
○ Urbano and other co-workers carry the
○ Navarro asks Urbano to inform Tomelden that it
unconscious Tomelden to the office of the
is time to leave.
LIWAD General Manager, where he spends the
○ Tomelden, in a drunken state, insults Urbano,
night.
telling him he has no business stopping him as
he’s paying for his share of the bill. September 29, 1993

● Around 8:00 PM: ● Morning:

○ The group returns to the LIWAD compound in ○ Tomelden remains in the LIWAD compound
Lingayen, Pangasinan. until late afternoon.
○ Inside the LIWAD compound, Tomelden insults
Urbano again, calling him "sipsip" (suck-up) ● Around 6:00 PM:
and saying he’s only keeping his job as ○ Tomelden returns home and informs his wife,
Navarro's tricycle driver. Rosario, about the fight and how he was
○ Tomelden challenges Urbano to a fistfight, rendered unconscious the previous night.
delivering several punches and kicks at Urbano, ○ He complains of pain in his nape, head, and ear.

9
 ○ Rosario takes Tomelden to the Lingayen
Community Hospital. October 10, 1993
○ Dr. Daisy Arellano examines him and treats a
lacerated left index finger, contusions, and a ● Around 3:00 PM:
hematoma in the right cerebrum. ○ Due to financial constraints, Tomelden is
discharged from the hospital despite showing no
October 2, 1993 improvement in his condition.

● Tomelden returns to the hospital, complaining of ● Afternoon:

dizziness, headache, and other pains. ○ After reaching home, Tomelden again
complains of extreme head pain.
October 7, 1993
○ Rosario takes him back to the Lingayen
● Tomelden visits the hospital again with the same Community Hospital.
complaints. ○ Dr. Arellano attends to Tomelden, noting that he
● Doctors observe Tomelden to be in a state of is semi-conscious, sleepy, uncooperative, and
drowsiness and frequent vomiting. not responding to any stimulant.

October 8, 1993 ● 9:00 PM:

○ Brigido Tomelden passes away. The cause of
● Rosario brings Tomelden to the Sison Memorial death is determined as "cardio-respiratory arrest
Provincial Hospital in Dagupan City. secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant
● Dr. Ramon Ramos diagnoses Tomelden with "brain cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident."
injury, secondary to mauling to consider cerebral
hemorrhage."
● Tomelden is confined in the hospital.

10
The doctrine of proximate cause refers to the legal principle 3. Proximate Cause: To hold Urbano responsible, the law
that helps determine whether a person’s actions can be had to establish that his punch wasn’t just a minor or
considered the direct cause of someone else’s injury or death. distant cause but the primary cause of Tomelden’s
For a person to be held legally responsible, their actions must death. The court had to decide whether Urbano’s punch
be closely related to the harm that occurred—this is called directly caused the brain hemorrhage that led to
"proximate cause." Tomelden's death, without any other significant
intervening events.
How It Relates to the Urbano Case 4. Court’s Decision: The court concluded that Urbano’s
punch was indeed the proximate cause of Tomelden’s
In the Urbano v. People of the Philippines case, Urbano death. Even though several days passed between the
punched Brigido Tomelden after Tomelden repeatedly insulted punch and Tomelden’s death, the punch set off a chain
and physically assaulted him. Tomelden fell, was rendered of medical events that directly led to his brain injury
unconscious, and later complained of various pains. After and eventual death.
medical treatment and several hospital visits, Tomelden
eventually died from a cerebral hemorrhage (bleeding in the Why It Matters
brain) on October 10, 1993.
Understanding proximate cause is crucial because not every
The main legal question was whether Urbano’s punch was the action that leads to an injury or death results in legal
proximate cause of Tomelden’s death. Here’s how it’s responsibility. For example, if Tomelden had been in a car
explained in simple terms: accident or suffered a different injury after the punch, Urbano
might not be considered the proximate cause of death. But
1. The Punch: Urbano punched Tomelden, who fell and
because the death was directly linked to the injuries from
hit his head. This injury started a chain of events that
Urbano's punch, Urbano was held legally responsible.
led to Tomelden's death. So, the first question is: Did
the punch directly lead to Tomelden's injury and death? Proximate cause is about finding the direct link between an
2. Medical Condition: After the punch, Tomelden action (like a punch) and the outcome (like death). In this case,
developed symptoms like dizziness, headache, and the court found that Urbano's punch directly caused
eventually a brain hemorrhage. The doctors linked these Tomelden's injuries, which led to his death, making Urbano
symptoms to the injuries he sustained from the fight. responsible under the law.

11
Case: Issues:
Roño Seguritan y Jara vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the
Second Division, Supreme Court trial court’s judgment of conviction for homicide.
Justice Del Castillo, J. 2. Whether Roño Seguritan should have been convicted of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide instead.
Facts:
Ruling:

On November 25, 1995, Roño Seguritan y Jara (petitioner) was

involved in a drinking session with his uncles, Lucrecio The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the
Seguritan, Melchor Panis, and Baltazar Panis, in Barangay decision of the Court of Appeals with modification.
Paradise, Gonzaga, Cagayan. During a heated argument about a
Ratio Decidendi:
carabao that allegedly destroyed Roño's crops, the petitioner
punched Lucrecio twice, causing him to fall and hit his head on 1. Factual Findings: The Court upheld the factual
a hollow block. Lucrecio later died that night. findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, which
The autopsy revealed that Lucrecio died of traumatic head found that Roño’s actions directly caused Lucrecio's
injuries. Roño was charged with homicide. The Regional Trial death. The court emphasized that factual findings of the
Court (RTC) found Roño guilty of homicide and sentenced him trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate
to an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision court, are accorded great respect and are generally not
mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion disturbed on appeal unless significant factual matters
temporal as maximum. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed were overlooked, which was not the case here.
the RTC’s decision but modified the sentence to 6 years and 1
day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and 1 day of 2. Liability for Homicide: The Court rejected Roño's
reclusion temporal as maximum. argument that he should only be liable for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, citing that even if the
intent to kill was absent, the death caused by his
unlawful act (punching) still constitutes homicide under
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The principle of el
que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado (he

12
 who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused) was applied, holding Roño accountable for the
fatal consequences of his actions. What is the Case All About?

3. Damages Awarded: The Supreme Court modified the The case involves Roño Seguritan y Jara, who was convicted
damages awarded. It removed the award of actual of homicide for causing the death of his uncle, Lucrecio
damages due to the lack of documentary evidence, Seguritan. On November 25, 1995, during a heated
replacing it with ₱25,000.00 in temperate damages. argument, Roño punched Lucrecio, causing him to fall and
Additionally, it affirmed the award of ₱50,000.00 as hit his head. Lucrecio later died from head injuries sustained
moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, during the incident. Roño challenged his conviction, arguing
along with ₱135,331.00 for loss of earning capacity. that the injuries were not the direct cause of Lucrecio's death.

How is the Case Related to the Doctrine of Proximate

Disposition: Cause?

The case is related to the doctrine of proximate cause

The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of because it determines whether Roño's actions (the punches)
Appeals was affirmed with modification, ordering Roño were the direct and significant cause of Lucrecio's death. The
Seguritan y Jara to pay additional temperate damages of court had to assess if the head injuries inflicted by Roño
₱25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages. were the main reason for Lucrecio's death or if other factors,
like a heart attack, played a more significant role. Ultimately,
the court found that Roño's actions were the proximate cause
of the death, meaning his punches were a direct and primary
factor in the fatal outcome.

13
Timeline of Events ● November 25, 1995 (Evening, around 9:00 PM)
○ Lucrecio's wife and daughter notice that his
1995 complexion has darkened and that a foamy
substance is coming out of his mouth.
● November 25, 1995 (Afternoon)
○ Despite efforts to revive him, Lucrecio passes
○ Petitioner Roño Seguritan y Jara, along with his
away later that evening.
uncles Lucrecio Seguritan, Melchor Panis, and
Baltazar Panis, have a drinking session at the 1996
house of Manuel dela Cruz in Barangay
Paradise, Gonzaga, Cagayan. ● December 4, 1995
○ During the drinking session, a heated argument ○ After Lucrecio's burial, his wife learns of Roño's
arises between Roño and Lucrecio about the involvement in her husband's death.
alleged entry of Lucrecio's carabao into Roño's ○ She seeks the assistance of the National Bureau
farm, which Roño claims damaged his crops. of Investigation (NBI).
○ As Lucrecio attempts to stand up, Roño punches ● May 21, 1996
him twice in the temples—one punch on the ○ Melchor Panis executes a sworn statement at the
right temple and another on the left temple. Gonzaga Police Station, recounting the events
○ The force of the punches causes Lucrecio to fall that transpired on November 25, 1995, including
backward, hitting his head on a hollow block Roño's punches that led to Lucrecio's death.
being used as an improvised stove. ● NBI Investigation
○ Lucrecio loses consciousness but is revived with ○ Dr. Antonio Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer,
the help of Baltazar. exhumed Lucrecio's body and performed an
● November 25, 1995 (Later in the Afternoon) autopsy.
○ After regaining consciousness, Lucrecio leaves ○ The autopsy reveals hematomas in the scalp on
the scene and takes a tricycle to his house in the right parietal and left occipital areas, a linear
Barangay Calayan, Cagayan, a neighboring fracture in the right middle fossa, and a subdural
barangay. hemorrhage in the right and left cerebral
○ Upon arrival at his home, his wife notices blood hemispheres.
on his forehead. Lucrecio tells her that he was ○ Dr. Vertido concludes that the cause of death
"stoned" before going to his room to rest. was a traumatic head injury.

14
 ● October 1, 1996 ● February 24, 2006
○ An Information for Homicide is filed against ○ The Court of Appeals (CA) affirms with
Roño Seguritan y Jara, accusing him of modification the RTC decision, reducing the
intentionally assaulting, attacking, and boxing maximum sentence to 12 years and 1 day of
Lucrecio, causing head injuries that resulted in reclusion temporal.
his death. ○ The CA also orders Roño to pay ₱50,000.00 as
● Arraignment and Trial moral damages in addition to the amounts
○ During arraignment, Roño pleads not guilty to already awarded by the RTC.
the charge. ● May 23, 2006
○ The trial ensues, with both the prosecution and ○ Roño's Motion for Reconsideration is denied by
defense presenting their respective evidence and the CA.
witnesses.
2010
2001
● April 19, 2010
● February 5, 2001 ○ The Supreme Court denies Roño's petition for
○ The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, review, affirming the decision of the Court of
Cagayan, Branch 06, renders a decision finding Appeals with modification.
Roño Seguritan guilty beyond reasonable doubt ○ The Supreme Court affirms the sentence of 6
of homicide. years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum,
○ Roño is sentenced to an indeterminate sentence to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as
of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.
minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion ○ The Supreme Court modifies the damages
temporal as maximum. awarded:
○ He is ordered to pay the heirs of Lucrecio ■ ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity
Seguritan ₱30,000.00 as actual damages and ■ ₱50,000.00 as moral damages
₱135,331.00 as loss of earning capacity. ■ ₱135,331.00 for loss of earning capacity
■ ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu
2006 of actual damages

15
What is Proximate Cause? 4. Court’s Finding: The courts found that Roño’s actions
were indeed the proximate cause of Lucrecio’s death.
Proximate cause is a legal concept that helps determine They based this on:
whether someone is legally responsible for an event. It focuses ○ Medical Evidence: The autopsy showed fatal
on whether the person's actions were a direct and significant head injuries directly linked to the punches.
cause of the outcome, even if other factors were involved. ○ Witness Testimony: Eyewitnesses testified that
Lucrecio’s fall and injury were caused by
How Proximate Cause Applies to This Case Roño’s actions.
In this case, Roño Seguritan y Jara was convicted of Proximate cause in this case is about connecting Roño’s direct
homicide for causing the death of his uncle, Lucrecio action (punching Lucrecio) to the end result (Lucrecio's death).
Seguritan. The key legal question was whether Roño’s actions The court decided that Roño’s punches were a major and direct
were the "proximate cause" of Lucrecio's death. Here’s how it cause of Lucrecio's death, despite other potential factors.
breaks down: Essentially, Roño’s actions set off a chain of events that led
directly to Lucrecio's demise.
1. Initial Action: Roño punched Lucrecio twice, which
made him fall and hit his head on a block.
2. Injuries and Death: Lucrecio suffered severe head
injuries from the fall. Even though he later complained
of other symptoms, like a darkened complexion and
foamy mouth, the main issue was whether these
symptoms were caused by the head injuries Roño
inflicted.
3. Legal Focus: The court had to decide if Roño’s
punches were the primary cause of Lucrecio's death or
if other factors, like a heart attack, were the real cause.
They had to establish if the head injuries were
significant enough to be considered the direct cause of
death, or if another cause (like a heart attack) was more
likely.

16
Case Digest: People of the Philippines v. Rafael Marco, Constancio to flee. Rafael struck Constancio with a
Simeon Marco, and Dulcisimo Beltran cane, resulting in slight physical injuries.
● Rafael and Simeon later attacked Bienvenido. Rafael,
G.R. Nos. L-28324-5
armed with a cane and a hunting knife, stabbed
Date: May 19, 1978
Bienvenido, who fell after his foot got caught in a vine.
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
Dulcisimo Beltran then stabbed Bienvenido near the
Division: Second Division
anus, and Simeon followed, stabbing him in the left
Justices: Barredo, Fernando (Chairman), Aquino,
breast and upper arm.
Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Antonio (did not participate)
● Bienvenido died shortly after the attack. Vicente
Parties: Sabelbero, the father of Bienvenido and Constancio,
witnessed the events and tried to intervene.
● Plaintiff-Appellee: The People of the Philippines
● Defendant-Appellant: Rafael Marco Issues:
● Co-Defendants: Simeon Marco, Dulcisimo Beltran
1. Whether Rafael Marco was guilty of murder or only of
Counsel: slight physical injuries.
2. Whether the evidence established a conspiracy among
● For Appellant: Jose P. Bengzon (Counsel de Oficio) Rafael Marco, Simeon Marco, and Dulcisimo Beltran.
● For Appellee: Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar,
Assistant Solicitor General Felisicimo R. Rosete, Ruling:
Solicitor Teodulo R. Dino
● The Supreme Court modified the lower court's decision,
Facts: holding Rafael Marco guilty only of slight physical
injuries rather than murder.
● On November 5, 1964, during a fiesta in Barrio Subang, ● The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to
Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, Rafael Marco and his establish a conspiracy among the defendants. The
son Simeon Marco, along with Dulcisimo Beltran, attacks on Bienvenido Sabelbero were not simultaneous
attacked Bienvenido Sabelbero. Simeon approached but successive, and there was no clear connection
Constancio Sabelbero with a hunting knife, causing between Rafael Marco's actions and those of Beltran
and Simeon. The evidence did not conclusively prove

17
 that Rafael was involved in a common criminal design
with the others.
What is the Case All About?
Decision:
The case involves a violent altercation during a fiesta in
● Rafael Marco: Guilty of slight physical injuries. Barrio Subang, Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, where Rafael
Sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor and to pay Marco, Simeon Marco, and Dulcisimo Beltran attacked
costs. Constancio and Bienvenido Sabelbero. Rafael Marco
● Simeon Marco and Dulcisimo Beltran: Their initially struck Constancio, and later, Rafael, Simeon, and
Beltran ganged up on Bienvenido, resulting in fatal injuries.
penalties as decided by the lower court were not
The case revolves around the criminal liability of the
disturbed due to their voluntary surrender and lesser attackers for the injuries and death of Bienvenido Sabelbero.
involvement in the crime.
How is the Case Related to the Doctrine of Proximate
Rationale: Cause?

● The Court concluded that while Rafael Marco inflicted The doctrine of proximate cause pertains to the direct link
injuries, there was no evidence of a pre-conceived plan between an action and the resulting harm. In this case, the
or conspiracy to commit murder. The separate acts of actions of Rafael Marco, Simeon Marco, and Dulcisimo
the defendants did not show a unified intent to kill. Beltran were the proximate cause of Bienvenido Sabelbero’s
death. Their direct and immediate actions—Rafael's initial
● The ruling focused on the principle that conspiracy
attack, followed by the subsequent stabbings by both Rafael,
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and mere Simeon, and Beltran—constituted the proximate cause of
simultaneity of actions does not establish criminal Bienvenido’s injuries and death, establishing their criminal
conspiracy. liability for the fatal outcome.

Concurring Justices: Fernando, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,

Santos

Justice Antonio: Took no part

18
Timeline of Events slight physical injuries.

1. November 5, 1964, 2:30 PM 4. 2:30 PM (Ongoing)

○ Location: Market place of Barrio Subang, ○ Event: Vicente Sabelbero, father of Constancio
Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur and Bienvenido, is in the crowd and hears
○ Event: A fiesta is being celebrated, and it is shouts of "Fight! Fight!".
raining. ○ Action: Vicente sees Simeon about to stab
Constancio and grabs Simeon's hand to stop
2. 2:30 PM him.
○ Incident: Simeon Marco approaches
Constancio Sabelbero. 5. Subsequent Actions
■ Simeon asks Constancio if he is the one ○ Event: Rafael Marco approaches Vicente,
who boxed his brother the previous year. armed with a cane and a hunting knife.
Constancio denies. ■ Vicente, sensing danger, shouts to his
■ Simeon then asks Constancio if he has sons Constancio and Bienvenido to run
cigarettes. Constancio says he has none. away because the Marcos are armed.
■ Simeon pulls out a one-foot long hunting
knife and threatens Constancio. 6. 2:30 PM
○ Event: Constancio runs away, as does Vicente.
3. Immediate Aftermath ○ Action: Bienvenido Sabelbero arrives on the
○ Action: Constancio, frightened by Simeon's scene and is chased by Rafael Marco.
knife, runs away. ○ Event: Rafael stabs Bienvenido in the left side
○ Event: Constancio passes by Rafael Marco, of his body, wounding him on the left hand as
who is standing nearby. Bienvenido parries the blow.
■ Rafael strikes Constancio with a round
cane, hitting him on the left ear and left 7. Immediately After the Stabbing
shoulder. ○ Event: Bienvenido attempts to run farther but
○ Legal Outcome: This act leads to Criminal his foot gets caught in a vine.
Case No. 2758, where Rafael is convicted of ○ Action: Bienvenido falls to the ground.

19
 8. 2:30 PM (Shortly After Falling) Summary
○ Event: Dulcisimo Beltran arrives and stabs
Bienvenido near his anus while he is on the The events unfold rapidly with Simeon Marco initiating the
ground. violence with a knife, Rafael Marco striking Constancio, and
○ Event: Simeon Marco arrives and also stabs the subsequent pursuit and fatal stabbing of Bienvenido
Bienvenido, targeting his left breast and upper Sabelbero by Rafael, followed by Beltran and Simeon. The
part of his left arm. sequence is marked by rapid and violent actions, leading to the
death of Bienvenido.
9. Post-Assault
○ Action: Rafael Marco, Simeon Marco, and
Dulcisimo Beltran flee the scene.
○ Event: Bienvenido stands up slowly and walks
zigzaggingly towards a store named Pinda.

10. Aftermath
○ Event: Bienvenido collapses in front of Pinda’s
store.
○ Action: Vicente, upon learning of Bienvenido’s
condition, goes to the store and finds
Bienvenido lying there. Bienvenido tells Vicente
that he was ganged up on by the Marcos.

11. After Effects

○ Event: Bienvenido Sabelbero dies as a result of
the injuries inflicted by Rafael, Simeon, and
Beltran.

20
The doctrine of proximate cause is about figuring out what
directly led to an outcome or result. Think of it like tracing a
chain of events to see which ones are directly responsible for
what happened.

In this case, the doctrine of proximate cause helps us

understand how the attackers' actions directly led to
Bienvenido Sabelbero's death. Here's how it works:

1. Chain of Events: Rafael Marco started the violence by

attacking Constancio Sabelbero. Later, Rafael, Simeon
Marco, and Dulcisimo Beltran all joined in to attack
Bienvenido. The attacks happened one after the other in
a direct sequence.
2. Direct Link: Because the attacks happened in such
close succession, and the injuries from these attacks led
directly to Bienvenido's death, there’s a clear link
between the attackers' actions and the fatal outcome.
3. Responsibility: According to the doctrine of proximate
cause, each attacker is responsible for the result of their
actions if their actions were directly connected to the
harm caused. So, in this case, the attackers’ actions (the
stabbings and beating) are seen as the direct cause of
Bienvenido's death.

By looking at the chain of actions and their immediate impact,

the doctrine helps determine that the attackers are criminally
responsible for Bienvenido's death because their actions were
directly and immediately linked to what happened.

21
Case Digest: People of the Philippines v. Orlito Villacorta Ruling:

G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011 1. Credibility of Witnesses:

Facts: Orlito Villacorta was convicted of murder by the ○ The Supreme Court upheld the credibility of
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Malabon and sentenced to Mendeja's testimony, affirming that the trial
reclusion perpetua for the stabbing death of Danilo Cruz. The court's findings on witness credibility should be
Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. Villacorta given great weight. Mendeja’s account was
appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of insufficient consistent with the circumstances of the
evidence and erroneous application of treachery. stabbing, and her identification of Villacorta
was credible given their prior acquaintance and
On January 23, 2002, Villacorta, armed with a sharpened the conditions of the incident.
bamboo stick, suddenly attacked Cruz outside a sari-sari store. 2. Application of Treachery:
Witness Cristina Mendeja saw Villacorta stab Cruz and then ○ Treachery was correctly applied. The Court
flee. Cruz was treated initially at Tondo Medical Center but found that Villacorta's attack was sudden and
later died of tetanus infection on February 15, 2002, after being unprovoked, depriving Cruz of any chance to
transferred to San Lazaro Hospital. defend himself. The nature of the attack and the
conditions of the encounter met the legal
Issues:
requirements for treachery.
1. Credibility of Witnesses: Villacorta argued that 3. Degree of Liability:
Mendeja's testimony was inconsistent and implausible, ○ The Court agreed with Villacorta’s argument
challenging her credibility. regarding the proximate cause of Cruz’s death.
2. Application of Treachery: Villacorta contested that The stab wound was not the direct cause;
treachery was improperly applied in his case. tetanus infection was the immediate cause of
3. Degree of Liability: Villacorta contended that he death. Thus, Villacorta's liability was reduced to
should be liable only for slight physical injuries, not slight physical injuries rather than murder.
murder. Given the interval between the stabbing and the
onset of severe tetanus symptoms, the infection
was considered an efficient intervening cause.

22
Decision:
What is the Case All About?
● The Supreme Court reduced Villacorta’s conviction
from murder to slight physical injuries under Article The case of People of the Philippines vs. Orlito Villacorta
266(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Villacorta was revolves around Villacorta’s conviction for the stabbing of
sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and was ordered Danilo Salvador Cruz. Initially, Villacorta was found guilty
to pay ₱5,000.00 in moral damages. Since Villacorta of murder because Cruz died as a result of the attack.
had already served more than the imposed sentence, his However, it was later determined that Cruz’s death was
immediate release was ordered. significantly influenced by a tetanus infection that developed
from the injuries. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that
Key Takeaway: The Court emphasized that the proximate
Villacorta was guilty of slight physical injuries rather than
cause of death must be directly connected to the accused’s
murder, considering the infection as an important intervening
actions to uphold a murder conviction. In this case, the severe
factor.
tetanus infection that led to Cruz's death was deemed an
independent intervening cause. How is the Case Related to the Doctrine of Proximate
Cause?

The case is related to the doctrine of proximate cause as it

examines whether Villacorta’s stabbing was the direct cause
of Cruz’s death. While Villacorta’s action was the initial
cause of Cruz’s injuries, the doctrine of proximate cause
evaluates if the subsequent tetanus infection—an intervening
factor—broke the direct link between the stabbing and the
death. The Supreme Court used this doctrine to determine
that the infection was a significant factor, thus reducing
Villacorta’s culpability from murder to slight physical
injuries.

23
Timeline of Events ● Dr. Domingo Belandres, Jr., Head of the Tetanus
Department at San Lazaro Hospital, diagnoses Cruz
January 23, 2002 with tetanus.
● 2:00 AM:
○ The victim, Danilo Salvador Cruz, is at Cristina
Mendeja’s sari-sari store in C-4 Road, February 15, 2002
Bagumbayan, Navotas, ordering bread.
○ Accused-appellant Orlito Villacorta appears at ● Cruz dies from complications related to tetanus
the store, armed with a sharpened bamboo stick. infection, the following day after being admitted to San
○ Villacorta suddenly attacks Cruz, stabbing him Lazaro Hospital.
on the left side of his body.
○ The bamboo stick breaks and gets embedded in
Cruz’s body. July 31, 2002
○ Villacorta flees the scene.
○ Cristina Mendeja witnesses the stabbing and ● Orlito Villacorta is arrested.
attempts to chase Villacorta but fails.
○ Mendeja returns to her store and sees her
neighbor, Aron, removing the broken bamboo
September 9, 2002
stick from Cruz’s body.
○ Mendeja and Aron transport Cruz to Tondo ● Villacorta is arraigned and pleads not guilty to the
Medical Center for treatment. charge of murder.

February 14, 2002 September 22, 2006

● Cruz is admitted to San Lazaro Hospital with symptoms ● The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 170, Malabon
of severe tetanus infection. renders its decision, finding Villacorta guilty of murder
qualified by treachery.

24
 ● Villacorta is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and Villacorta guilty of slight physical injuries rather than
ordered to pay ₱50,000 as civil indemnity. murder, due to the intervening cause of tetanus
infection. Villacorta is sentenced to thirty (30) days of
arresto menor and ordered to pay ₱5,000 in moral
damages.
May 30, 2007

● Villacorta, through his counsel from the Public

Attorney’s Office (PAO), files an Appellant's Brief with
the Court of Appeals.

October 2, 2007

● The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor

General (OSG), files its Appellee’s Brief with the Court
of Appeals.

July 30, 2008

● The Court of Appeals promulgates its decision,

affirming the RTC’s judgment of conviction.

September 7, 2011

● The Supreme Court renders its decision on appeal,

modifying the lower court's ruling. The Court finds

25
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Orlito Villacorta, the proximate cause of Cruz’s death, given that the
the doctrine of proximity plays a crucial role in understanding tetanus infection played a significant role.
how the accused’s actions relate to the victim's death.
Application in the Case
Case Overview
● Initial Court Rulings: The lower courts initially found
1. The Attack: Villacorta guilty of murder, focusing on the direct
○ Orlito Villacorta attacked Danilo Salvador Cruz connection between the stabbing and Cruz’s death,
with a bamboo stick, causing injuries to Cruz. without fully accounting for the intervening cause of
This act is the direct cause of Cruz’s initial tetanus.
harm. ● Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court, however,
2. Tetanus Infection: adjusted the ruling based on the doctrine of proximity.
○ After the attack, Cruz was treated, but he later The Court found that while Villacorta’s stabbing was a
developed a severe tetanus infection, which led direct cause of Cruz’s injuries, the subsequent tetanus
to his death. The infection was a result of the infection was an important intervening factor that broke
injury, but it was an additional factor that the direct chain of causation. Therefore, the Court
contributed to Cruz’s demise. concluded that Villacorta was guilty of slight physical
injuries rather than murder, as the death was not solely
Doctrine of Proximity in This Case attributable to the initial act but also to the infection that
followed.
● Direct Cause: Villacorta’s stabbing of Cruz is the direct
cause of Cruz’s injuries. The doctrine of proximity here
would focus on whether Villacorta’s action directly led
to Cruz’s harm.
● Intervening Cause: The tetanus infection is considered
an “intervening cause” because it was a separate factor
that arose after the initial injury. The infection, while
resulting from the injury, was not directly caused by
Villacorta’s action. This creates a question of whether
Villacorta’s original act of stabbing can be considered

26
Tan, et al., vs. Ballena et al. Petition for Review and Dismissal of Informations
Case Summary (G.R. No. 168111)
● The officers filed a Petition for Review with the
Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing that there was no
Case Background and Allegations
probable cause to indict them.
● The case of Tan v. Ballena involves a complaint filed by ● The DOJ granted the petition and directed the
employees of Footjoy Industrial Corporation against Provincial Prosecutor to withdraw the informations.
their employer and its officers.
● The employees allege that the company did not Motion for Reconsideration and Petition for Certiorari
regularly report them for membership at the Social
Security System (SSS) and failed to remit their ● The employees filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
contributions and payment for their SSS loans. the DOJ's decision, but it was denied.
● The employees claim that these actions violated various ● They then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court
provisions of the SSS Law and the Revised Penal Code. of Appeals, arguing that the DOJ committed grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges against the
officers.
Complaint and Probable Cause Finding

● The employees filed a complaint with the Office of the Dismissal and Amended Petition
Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan.
● The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause to ● The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition
charge the company and its officers with violations of due to procedural defects.
the SSS Law. ● However, the Court of Appeals later allowed an
● Two informations were filed against the officers in the amended petition to be filed.
Regional Trial Court of Bulacan.
Court of Appeals Decision

● The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in favor of the

employees, finding that there was probable cause to
indict the officers for the violations of the SSS Law.

27
Petition for Review with the Supreme Court
What is the case about?
● The officers filed a Petition for Review with the
Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred Tan v. Ballena involves employees filing a complaint against
in giving due course to the petition despite the their employer for failing to report and remit Social Security
procedural defects. System (SSS) contributions. The case deals with whether
● They also argued that there was no probable cause to there was probable cause to indict the employer and its
indict them. officers for violating the SSS Law.
Relation to the topic—nature of felonies: mala in se and
Supreme Court Decision mala prohibita

● The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of The case concerns mala prohibita offenses, as the violations
Appeals. involve failing to comply with statutory obligations under the
SSS Law, rather than acts inherently immoral. The Supreme
● The Court found that the procedural defects were
Court affirmed that these statutory violations do not require
excusable and that there was indeed probable cause to proof of intent and are deemed wrong due to their prohibition
indict the officers. by law.
● The Court emphasized that probable cause is based on a
reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and
that the intent to commit the crime is immaterial in
mala prohibita offenses like the ones charged in this
case.

Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the officers' petition and

affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

28
In the case of Tan v. Ballena (G.R. No. 168111), the nature of The case primarily revolves around procedural issues and
the offense relates to the distinction between mala in se and whether there was probable cause to indict the officers for their
mala prohibita: alleged failure to comply with the SSS Law, which is classified
under mala prohibita.
1. Mala in Se: These are acts that are inherently immoral
or wrong, such as murder or theft. They are considered
wrong by their very nature, regardless of whether they
are prohibited by law.
2. Mala Prohibita: These are acts that are not inherently
immoral but are prohibited by law. Their wrongfulness
stems from their being prohibited by statute, not from
any inherent moral failing.

In this case, the violations pertain to the Social Security System

(SSS) Law, which deals with the employer's obligations to
report and remit contributions for employees. The failure to
comply with these obligations does not involve inherent moral
wrongdoing but rather the breach of legal duties.

The offenses charged are mala prohibita because they involve

failing to adhere to statutory requirements, not because the
actions themselves are intrinsically immoral. The legal nature
of these offenses is important because, as noted in the Supreme
Court’s decision, mala prohibita offenses do not require a
showing of intent to commit a crime; the mere act of violating
the statutory provisions is sufficient.

29
Case Digest Ruling:

G.R. No. 157171 The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

March 14, 2006
1. Classification of Crime: Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No.
Arsenia B. Garcia, Petitioner 6646 defines crimes that are mala in se. These offenses
vs. are inherently immoral and involve a willful and
Hon. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, intentional act. In the case of election offenses, such as
Respondents tampering with votes, the criminal intent is inherently
presumed, as these acts are done with malicious intent
Facts: to affect the election outcome. Thus, good faith or lack
of criminal intent is not a valid defense.
Petitioner Arsenia B. Garcia, an election officer, was charged
2. Factual Findings: The Court found no reason to
with violating Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 for
disturb the factual conclusions of the lower courts.
decreasing the votes received by senatorial candidate Aquilino
Garcia's admissions during the trial, including her
Q. Pimentel, Jr. during the 1995 senatorial elections. The
preparation of the Certificate of Canvass and the
complaint-affidavit alleged that Garcia, along with other
decrease of Pimentel’s votes, supported the conviction.
officials, had unlawfully reduced Pimentel's votes from 6,998
The significant discrepancy in the votes was deemed
to 1,921. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Alaminos City
substantial and not attributable to mere clerical errors or
acquitted all accused except Garcia. She was found guilty and
fatigue.
sentenced to six years of imprisonment with an indeterminate
sentence of six months minimum. Garcia appealed to the Court Conclusion:
of Appeals, which modified the decision by increasing the
minimum penalty to one year. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals, maintaining Garcia’s conviction for the election
Issues: offense and the modification of her sentence to one year of
imprisonment. The appeal was denied, underscoring the
1. Whether a violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No.
importance of integrity and accuracy in the canvassing process
6646 is classified as mala in se or mala prohibita.
and the non-applicability of good faith as a defense in election
2. Whether good faith and lack of criminal intent can be
law violations.
valid defenses in this case.

30
 Timeline of Events in G.R. No. 157171

What is the case all about? 1. May 8, 1995

○ The senatorial elections were held in the
The case G.R. No. 157171 involves Arsenia B. Garcia, who Philippines.
was convicted of violating Section 27(b) of Republic Act No.
6646. Garcia, an election officer, was found guilty of 2. May 11, 1995
tampering with election results by decreasing the votes of ○ The canvassing of votes in the Municipality of
senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. from 6,998 to Alaminos, Pangasinan took place.
1,921. The Supreme Court upheld her conviction and ○ The results from 159 precincts were tallied and
increased her minimum sentence to one year, affirming the sealed.
Court of Appeals’ decision that Garcia's actions were a ○ The Municipal Board of Canvassers, including
deliberate electoral fraud. Petitioner Arsenia B. Garcia (Chairman),
How is the case related to the nature of felonies: mala in Herminio R. Romero (Municipal Treasurer),
se, and mala prohibita, and where does it fall under? Renato R. Viray (Public School District
Supervisor), and tabulators Rachel Palisoc and
The case relates to the nature of felonies by distinguishing Francisca de Vera, conducted the canvassing.
between mala in se and mala prohibita. The Supreme Court ○ The votes were recorded in Statements of Votes
classified the offense under Section 27(b) of Republic Act (SOV) and added up using electrical adding
No. 6646 as mala in se, meaning it is inherently immoral machines.
due to the intentional manipulation of election results. This ○ The grand total of votes for each candidate was
classification requires proof of criminal intent, which was recorded, and discrepancies emerged.
evident in Garcia’s deliberate vote tampering. In contrast,
mala prohibita offenses do not require criminal intent and
are wrong only because they are prohibited by law.

31
 3. March 30, 1998 6. Court of Appeals Decision
○ An information was filed against Garcia and ○ The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC
other accused for violation of Section 27(b) of decision but modified the penalty:
Republic Act No. 6646, alleging the reduction ■ The minimum penalty was increased
of Pimentel’s votes. from six months to one year.
○ The Court of Appeals denied Garcia’s motion
4. September 11, 2000 for reconsideration.
○ The RTC of Alaminos City rendered its
decision: 7. March 14, 2006
■ All accused except Garcia were ○ The Supreme Court rendered its decision:
acquitted due to insufficient evidence. ■ Affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision
■ Garcia was convicted of reducing and conviction.
Pimentel’s votes from 6,998 to 1,921. ■ Maintained the increased minimum
■ Garcia was sentenced to six years of penalty of one year of imprisonment.
imprisonment (maximum) with a ■ Held that the violation of Section 27(b)
minimum penalty of six months under is mala in se, not mala prohibita.
the Indeterminate Sentence Law. ■ Good faith and lack of criminal intent
■ Disqualification from holding public are not valid defenses in cases of
office and deprivation of the right of election fraud.
suffrage were also imposed. ○ The petition filed by Garcia was denied, and the
■ The bailbond posted by Garcia was decision of the Court of Appeals was upheld.
cancelled, and she was committed to the
Bureau of Correctional Institution for
Women.

5. Post-RTC Decision
○ Garcia appealed the RTC decision to the Court
of Appeals.

32
The case G.R. No. 157171 (Arsenia B. Garcia v. Hon. Court Case Analysis:
of Appeals and the People of the Philippines) is directly
related to the topic of the nature of felonies—specifically, the In G.R. No. 157171, the Supreme Court analyzed whether a
distinction between mala in se and mala prohibitaoffenses. violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 should be
Here’s how the case connects to this topic: classified as mala in se or mala prohibita. Here’s how the case
fits into these categories:
Nature of Felonies: Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita
● Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646 makes it an
1. Mala in Se: offense for any member of the board of election
inspectors or canvassers to tamper with or incorrectly
● Definition: Felonies that are considered inherently
record votes. This includes decreasing or increasing
immoral or evil, regardless of the law. These offenses
votes received by a candidate.
are wrong by their very nature, and criminal intent is a
● Supreme Court Ruling: The Court determined that the
key component in establishing guilt.
offenses described in Section 27(b) are mala in se. The
● Examples: Murder, theft, and rape are typically
rationale was that intentionally tampering with or
classified as mala in se offenses because they are
decreasing votes is inherently immoral and involves
inherently immoral and require proof of intent or
criminal intent. This type of misconduct in the election
malice.
process is considered inherently wrongful because it
2. Mala Prohibita: undermines the integrity of the democratic process and
involves deliberate malfeasance.
● Definition: Offenses that are considered wrong only ● Key Points:
because they are prohibited by law. These crimes are ○ Criminal Intent: For mala in se crimes,
not inherently immoral but are punishable due to criminal intent is crucial. The Court concluded
statutory prohibitions. In mala prohibita offenses, that criminal intent is inherently present in vote
criminal intent is not necessary; the mere act of tampering, making it a mala in se offense.
violating the law is sufficient for conviction. ○ Good Faith as a Defense: The Court rejected
● Examples: Traffic violations, certain regulatory the idea that good faith could be a valid defense,
offenses, and some administrative infractions fall under as the crime requires proof of willful and
mala prohibita. intentional wrongdoing, not mere errors or
mistakes.

33
Conclusion:

The case of Arsenia B. Garcia falls under mala in se offenses

because the nature of the crime involves deliberate and
immoral actions that violate public trust and integrity. The
decision underscores that in election-related offenses, criminal
intent and moral culpability are essential elements,
differentiating these offenses from mala prohibita crimes where
intent is less relevant.

34
Acharon vs. People Case Summary (G.R. No. 224946) beyond reasonable doubt that Christian willfully
refused to provide financial support with the intention
of causing mental or emotional anguish.
Case Background and Facts

● The case involves Christian Pantonial Acharon who Interpretation of the Law
was charged with causing psychological or emotional
● The Supreme Court clarified the elements and
anguish to his wife by failing to provide financial
requirements for a conviction under Section 5 (i) of the
support.
Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act.
● Christian and his wife got married in September 2011,
● The Court emphasized that the mere failure or inability
and shortly after, Christian left to work in Brunei as a
to provide financial support is not enough to constitute
delivery rider.
a violation of the law.
● AAA, Christian's wife, testified that he did not
● The Court discussed the distinction between Section 5
regularly send money to support her and their loan from
(e) and Section 5 (i) of the law.
their godmother. She also claimed that Christian had a
● Section 5 (e) pertains to acts of economic abuse that
paramour in Brunei, causing her emotional distress.
control or restrict the woman's or her child's movement
● Christian denied the accusations and stated that he had
or conduct.
valid reasons for not providing regular financial
● Section 5 (i) deals with the denial of financial support
support.
with the intention of causing mental or emotional
anguish.
Conviction and Acquittal ● The Court abandoned previous rulings that allowed the
application of the variance doctrine to convict a person
● The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Christian of
under either section.
violating Section 5 (i) of the Anti-Violence Against
Women and their Children Act, which pertains to the
denial of financial support causing mental or emotional Conclusion
anguish.
● The Supreme Court acquitted Christian of the charges,
● The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision.
stating that the prosecution failed to prove his willful
● However, the Supreme Court acquitted Christian of the
charges, stating that the prosecution failed to prove

35
 refusal to provide financial support with the intention of
causing mental or emotional anguish. What the case is all about
● The Court clarified the elements and requirements for a
conviction under the Anti-Violence Against Women The case involves Christian Pantonial Acharon, who was
and their Children Act, emphasizing that the mere charged with violating the Anti-Violence Against Women
failure or inability to provide financial support is not and Their Children Act for failing to provide financial
enough to constitute a violation of the law. support to his wife, causing her emotional distress. The
Supreme Court acquitted him, stating that the prosecution
did not prove he willfully intended to cause emotional
anguish through his non-support.

How is the case related to the topic—nature of felonies:

mala in se and mala prohibita

The case relates to mala prohibita crimes, which are

offenses defined by statute rather than inherent morality. The
crime in question, under the Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act, is not inherently immoral but is
illegal because it is specifically prohibited by law. The
Supreme Court's decision clarified the statutory requirements
for proving such offenses.

36
Nature of Felonies: Summary:

1. Mala in Se: These are crimes that are inherently wrong ● Nature of Crime: Mala Prohibita
or evil, such as murder or theft. They are universally ● Legal Framework: The Anti-Violence Against Women
recognized as immoral, regardless of whether they are and Their Children Act establishes the crime, defining
prohibited by law. and regulating it by statute.
2. Mala Prohibita: These are acts that are not inherently ● Court's Role: The Supreme Court clarified the
immoral but are considered illegal because they are requirements for proving the violation, emphasizing the
prohibited by statute. The wrongful nature of these acts need for intent rather than merely the act of
is determined by law rather than their intrinsic morality. non-support.
Examples include certain regulatory offenses or
violations of administrative codes.

Case Relation:

The case of Christian Pantonial Acharon deals with a

violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act, specifically Section 5(i), which criminalizes the
denial of financial support causing mental or emotional
anguish. This is considered mala prohibita because the
wrongful nature of the act is defined by statute rather than by
inherent morality. The law defines and prohibits this conduct
due to its specific legal and social implications.

The Supreme Court's decision highlights that the statute

requires proof of willful intent to cause emotional distress
through the denial of support. Failure to provide support alone
does not automatically constitute a violation; it must be shown
that the refusal was done with the intent to cause emotional
harm.

37
De Vera v. People G.R. No. 246231, January 20, 2021 Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. This section punishes any act
of child abuse not specifically covered by other provisions of
Facts: the law. The Court ruled that petitioner's act was not just a
private matter but was committed with the intent to debase and
Petitioner Allan De Vera y Ante was accused of violating demean the victim, fitting the definition of "lascivious
Section 5(b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, which deals conduct" and psychological abuse as per the Implementing
with child abuse. The charge stemmed from an incident on July Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
7, 2012, where petitioner allegedly masturbated in the presence 7610.
of AAA, a 16-year-old student. Petitioner was initially
convicted of this charge by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). 2. Penalty and Damages:
The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC's decision, The Court found the CA's sentencing appropriate. The penalty
convicting him instead under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 for violation of Section 10(a) is prision mayor in its minimum
for other forms of child abuse. period, which the CA correctly imposed within the range
provided by law. The Court also increased the civil indemnity
Issues: and moral damages awarded to the victim to P50,000.00 each
and reinstated the exemplary damages to P50,000.00. The
1. Whether the CA erred in convicting petitioner under increased amounts reflect the seriousness of the psychological
Section 10(a) of R.A. trauma suffered by the victim.
No. 7610. Summary:
2. Whether the penalties and damages awarded were
appropriate. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's conviction of petitioner
for psychological abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
Rulings:
It ruled that the act of masturbating in front of the minor was
sufficient to constitute child abuse under the law. The Court
1. Conviction Under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610:
also adjusted the damages awarded to better reflect the extent
The Supreme Court upheld the CA's decision. It agreed that
of harm caused to the victim.
although petitioner was charged under Section 5(b), the
evidence supported a conviction under Section 10(a) of R.A.
No. 7610. The Court held that the act of masturbating in front
of a minor constitutes psychological abuse, which falls under

38
Key Takeaway:

The Court emphasizes that psychological abuse and acts that

debase or demean a child's dignity, even if not explicitly
charged, fall under the protection of child abuse laws. The
severity of the crime and the impact on the victim justify the
imposed penalties and damages.

What is the case about?

The case involves Allan De Vera y Ante, who was convicted

of violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, the
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation,
and Discrimination Act. The case centers on his act of
masturbating in the presence of a 16-year-old student, which
was found to constitute psychological abuse under the law.

How is the case related to the nature of felonies: mala in

se and mala prohibita, where does it fall under?

The crime in this case falls under mala prohibita. This

classification means the act is considered criminal not
because it is inherently immoral but because it is prohibited
by statute. In this case, masturbation in the presence of a
minor is punishable under Republic Act No. 7610, which
aims to protect children from various forms of abuse.

39
Timeline of the Case: Allan De Vera y Ante vs. People of August 3, 2012
the Philippines • Formal Charge: Petitioner is charged with the crime of
Violation of Section
July 7, 2012 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
• Incident: Allan De Vera y Ante (petitioner) allegedly commits
an act of masturbation in the presence of AAA, a 16-year-old Trial Phase
student, in the Mini-Library of XXX University. • RTC Ruling: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) finds the
Post-Incident Actions petitioner guilty of the crime of Violation of Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering
○ AAA's Reaction: After witnessing the act, AAA leaves him to pay damages.
the Mini-Library, informs her classmate CCC, who
advises her to report the incident to the University September 27, 2018
Security Office. • Court of Appeals (CA) Decision: The CA partly grants the
○ Reporting: AAA's mother, BBB, is contacted and petitioner's appeal, finding the petitioner guilty of child abuse
subsequently goes to the university where the petitioner under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, rather than Section 5(b).
is detained by the security officers. They then proceed The CA reduces the damages awarded and modifies the
to the police station to file a formal complaint. sentence.

July 8, 2012
January 20, 2021
• Petitioner's Arrest: Allan De Vera y Ante is arrested and his
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court rules that the
underwear is inspected for traces of discharge, but none are
CA's decision is within the bounds of law. The court finds that
found.
the act of masturbation in the presence of a minor constitutes
psychological abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The
July 10, 2012
Court upholds the CA's conviction but modifies the damages
• University Disciplinary Action: XXX University forms an ad
awarded to AAA. The Court imposes increased amounts for
hoc disciplinary committee that clears the petitioner of the
civil indemnity and moral damages, and reinstates the award
alleged masturbation incident.
for exemplary damages.

40
Key Legal Findings

○ Violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610: The

Supreme Court confirms that the act of masturbation in
the presence of a minor constitutes psychological abuse
and is punishable under this provision of the law.
○ Credibility of Victim: The Court finds the testimony of
AAA credible despite the petitioner's claims of
inconsistencies.
○ Penalty and Damages: The penalty imposed by the CA
is affirmed, and the Court increases the awards for civil
indemnity, moral damages, and reinstates exemplary
damages.

41
The case of Allan De Vera y Ante v. People of the Section 5(b) pertains to acts that involve a child being
Philippines relates to the topic of the nature of felonies with a exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse,
specific focus on mala in se and mala prohibita offenses. which is an explicit statutory definition of child abuse.
Here's a breakdown of how it fits into these categories:
Case Development
Nature of Felonies: Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita
● Initial Charge: The petitioner was charged under
1. Mala in Se: These are crimes that are inherently Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, but the court found
immoral or wrong by their very nature, such as murder insufficient evidence for this specific charge.
or theft. They are considered wrong in themselves, ● Revised Conviction: On appeal, the Court of Appeals
regardless of whether they are prohibited by law. convicted the petitioner under Section 10(a) of R.A.
2. Mala Prohibita: These are acts that are considered 7610, which deals with "any other acts of child abuse"
wrong because they are prohibited by law, not because not covered by other provisions of the same law. This
they are inherently immoral. They are offenses defined section is also mala prohibita as it defines and
by statutes or regulations and do not necessarily involve punishes additional forms of child abuse specifically
a moral wrongdoing in themselves. Examples include under the statute.
regulatory offenses and certain crimes under special
laws. Analysis

● Mala in Se: The case does not fall under mala in se

The Case and Its Classification because the crime involved is not inherently immoral
but rather prohibited by law.
In the Allan De Vera case, the petitioner was initially charged
● Mala Prohibita: The acts of masturbating in the
under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. 7610),
presence of a minor, though morally concerning, are
which deals with "other acts of child abuse." This section is
classified under mala prohibita as they fall under
generally considered mala prohibita because it criminalizes
specific statutory definitions of child abuse. The
specific acts that are defined by the statute rather than being
legislature has designated these acts as criminal
inherently immoral.
offenses to protect children, reflecting a societal
judgment that these actions are harmful and should be
penalized.

42
In summary, the offense in this case is categorized as mala
prohibita, as it involves specific statutory prohibitions aimed at
protecting children from various forms of abuse. The case
highlights how even acts that are not inherently immoral but
are explicitly prohibited by law can still lead to criminal
convictions under special statutes.

43
Meija Vs. People Case Summary (G.R. No. 149937) ● The trial court found Mejia guilty beyond reasonable
doubt and ordered him to pay the value of the bouncing
check, with interest and attorney's fees.
Case Background and Facts
● The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision
● The case involves the conviction of lawyer Ismael F. but deleted the award of attorney's fees.
Mejia for violating B.P. 22, which pertains to the ● Mejia filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
issuance of checks with insufficient funds. denied by the Court of Appeals.
● Mejia's client, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr., gave him a ● He filed a second motion for reconsideration, which
blank check to pay his real estate taxes. was also denied.
● Mejia filled out the check with the amount of ● Mejia then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
P27,700.00 and his name as the payee. before the Supreme Court.
● Mejia informed Bernardo that only P17,700.00 was
spent on realty taxes, with the remaining P10,000.00 Main Issue before the Supreme Court
used for his wife's hospitalization.
● Both parties treated the remaining amount as a loan. ● The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether
● Mejia requested an additional loan of P40,000.00 from the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Mejia's
Bernardo for his wife's medication. conviction for violation of B.P. 22.
● To secure the payment of his P50,000.00 loan, Mejia
issued a postdated check in favor of Bernardo. Supreme Court's Ruling and Reasoning
● Mejia requested Bernardo not to encash the check until
a later date. ● The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower
● Despite several requests for payment, Mejia failed to courts, emphasizing that the issuance of a bad check is
pay, and the check was dishonored by the bank due to the gravamen of the offense, and the purpose or terms
his closed account. surrounding its issuance are irrelevant to the
prosecution and conviction.
● The Court stated that considering the reason for which
Trial and Appellate Court Decisions
checks are issued or the terms and conditions for their
● Bernardo filed a case against Mejia for violation of B.P. issuance would undermine the stability and commercial
22. value of checks as currency substitutes.

44
Plea for Mercy and Compassion
What is the case about?
● Mejia pleaded for mercy and compassion, citing his
personal hardships. The case involves lawyer Ismael F. Mejia’s conviction for
● The Court emphasized that courts are not the forum to violating B.P. 22, which criminalizes the issuance of checks
plead for sympathy and that their duty is to apply the with insufficient funds. Mejia issued a check to secure a
law without regard for their feelings. loan, which was dishonored due to his closed account. The
● The Court stated that the remedy for mercy lies with the courts upheld his conviction, emphasizing that the nature of
executive or the amendment of the law by the the check's issuance was irrelevant to the statutory violation.
legislature.
What is the case’s relation to the topic—nature of
felonies: mala in se and mala prohibita, and where does it
Supreme Court's Conclusion
fall under?
● The Supreme Court denied Mejia's petition and The case relates to the distinction between mala in se
affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, (inherently immoral acts) and mala prohibita (acts
upholding his conviction for violating B.P. 22. prohibited by statute). The offense under B.P. 22 is mala
prohibita, as it concerns violations of statutory regulations
rather than inherent moral wrongs. The case illustrates how
statutory offenses like issuing a bad check are judged solely
based on adherence to legal provisions.

45
The case of Ismael F. Mejia (G.R. No. 149937) relates to the In summary, Mejia's conviction for violating B.P. 22 is an
legal distinction between mala in se and mala example of a mala prohibita offense where the legality is
prohibitaoffenses in the following way: determined by specific statutory provisions rather than the
inherent nature of the act. The case demonstrates the judicial
1. Nature of Felonies: Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita stance that statutory violations related to financial instruments
○ Mala in Se offenses are those that are inherently like checks are treated strictly to uphold financial stability and
immoral or wrong by their nature, such as theft prevent fraud, regardless of the personal or moral context.
or murder.
○ Mala Prohibita offenses are not inherently
immoral but are prohibited by statute; their
wrongfulness comes from the fact that they
violate specific legal provisions, such as
regulations or rules.
2. Application to the Case
○ The offense in question here, under B.P. 22 (the
Bouncing Checks Law), falls under the category
of mala prohibita. This is because the issuance
of a check without sufficient funds is deemed
illegal based on the statute, irrespective of the
moral intent or circumstances surrounding the
check's issuance.
○ The Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes that
the illegality of issuing a bouncing check is
based on the breach of a statutory regulation
rather than the inherent immorality of the act
itself. The Court focused on the statutory
violation and upheld Mejia's conviction because
the law's purpose is to ensure the reliability of
checks as a means of payment.

46