CALIMUTAN VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 152133 (February 9, 2006)
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:
 Petitioner: Rollie Calimutan
 On February 4, 1996, at around 10:00 am, the victim Cantre and witness Sañano,
together with two other companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar in
Crossing Capsay, Panique, Aroroy, Masbate.
 The victim and witness proceeded to go home to their respective houses after the
drinking session.
 Along the way, they crossed paths with petitioner Calimutan and a certain Michael
Bulalacao, Calimutan’s househelper. Victim Cantre was harboring a grudge
against Bulalacao, suspecting Bulalacao as the one responsible for throwing
stones at the Cantre’s house on a previous night.
 Upon seeing Bulalacao, Cantre suddenly punched him.
 When Bulalacao ran away, petitioner Calimutan picked up a stone (man’s fist),
which he threw at Cantre, hitting him at the LEFT side of his back.
 Witness Sañano accompanied victim Cantre to the latter’s house, and on the way,
Cantre complained of the pain in the left side of his back hit by the stone.
 Symptoms felt by Cantre that night: backache, stomachache, unable to eat, feeling
alternately feeling cold and warm, profusely sweating, entire body felt numb.
 The following day, February 5, 1996, Cantre asked for some food, ate a little, later
on vomited. He then again complained about backache and stomachache and died
thereafter.
 After death, victim Cantre was examined by Dr. Conchita S. Ulanday, the Municipal
Health Officer of Aroroy, Masbate. The Post-Mortem Report and Death Certificate
stated that the cause of death was “cardio-respiratory arrest due to suspected food
poisoning.
 Unsatisfied with the result, the Cantre family, through the help of Lingkod Bayan-
Circulo de Abogados of the ABS-CBN Foundation, requested for an exhumation
and autopsy of the body of Cantre by the NBI.
 The autopsy of Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, a Senior Medico Legal Officer from NBI,
revealed that the cause of death was actually “traumatic injury of the abdomen”.
Cantre suffered internal hemorrhage and there was a massive accumulation of
blood in his abdominal cavity due to LECERATED SPLEEN.
 The laceration of the spleen can be caused by any blunt instrument, such as
stone. Dr. Mendez confirmed the possibility that the victim was stoned to
death.
 To counter evidence, the defense presented the sole testimony of the accused
Calimutan, to wit: victim punched Bulalacao several times, victim refused to calm
down, victim pulled out 8-inches Batangas knife, stone was only 1-inch in diameter.
Calimutan maintained that he had no personal grudge against the victim.
 RTC essentially adopted the prosecution’s account of the incident. Petitioner was
found guilty of homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
  CA sustained the conviction of RTC. The prosecution has sufficiently established
that the serious internal injury sustained by the victim was caused by the stone
thrown to him. The motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.
 Petitioner Calimutan files a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal
of the decision of the RTC and CTA, convicting him of homicide, and his acquittal
of the said crime based on reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS:

PETITIONER PROSECUTION
 The existence of two autopsy  Presented the reports and
reports, with dissimilar findings on testimonies of Dr. Mendez
the cause of death, constituted  Presented two other witnesses,
reasonable doubt as to the Sañano and Belen Cantre. They
petitioner’s liability. adequately recounted events that
 The prosecution’s failure to present transpired on the day of the
Dr. Ulanday before the RTC incident.
amounted to a willful suppression of
evidence.

ISSUE AND RULING:

1. Is there a proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold petitioner Calimutan liable?

YES. The report and testimony of Dr. Mendez before the RTC are vital
pieces of evidence against the petitioner. It bears to emphasize that Dr. Mendez
was presented by the prosecution as an expert witness (with competency and
academic qualification and background). As an expert, he is presumed to possess
sufficient knowledge of branches of medicine germane to the issue involved in a
case. His findings are not just mere speculations but may sufficiently establish the
causal relationship between the stone and the lacerated spleen.

The witnesses also said that the victim Cantre seemed to be physically fine.
However, after being hit by the stone, the victim Cantre had continuously
complained of backache. Subsequently, his physical condition rapidly deteriorated,
until finally, he died. Other than being stoned by petitioner Calimutan, there was
no other instance when the victim Cantre may have been hit by another blunt
instrument which could have caused the laceration of his spleen.

Not even the post-mortem report of Dr. Ulanday, the Municipal Health
Officer who first examined the body of the victim Cantre, can raise reasonable
doubt as to the cause of death of the victim Cantre. In her post-mortem report, she
held back from making a categorical statement that the victim actually died of food
poisoning. There was no showing that further laboratory tests were indeed
conducted to confirm Dr. Ulanday’s suspicion that the victim Cantre suffered from
 food poisoning, and without such confirmation, her suspicion as to the cause of
death remains just that – a suspicion.

The difference in the two reports by the two doctors resulted from the
EXTENT of the examination. Dr. Ulanday only conducted a limited autopsy while
Dr. Mendez conducted an exhaustive autopsy. Therefore, the exhaustive autopsy
must be given credence by the court.

2. Did the non-presentation of Dr. Ulanday constitute suppression of evidence?

NO. The prosecutor has the exclusive prerogative to determine the

witnesses to be presented for the prosecution. If the prosecution has several
eyewitnesses, as in the instant case, the prosecutor need not present all of them
but only as many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Moreover, if the accused believed that the failure to present the other
witnesses was because their testimonies would be unfavorable to the prosecution,
he should have compelled their appearance, by compulsory process, to testify as
his own witnesses or even as hostile witnesses.

3. Were the RTC and CA correct as to the determination of the appropriate

crime or offense for which the petitioner should have been convicted for?

NO. The petitioner did not have any malicious intent to injure, much less to
kill, the victim canter. In the absence of such intent, the Court finds petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide (Art. 365, RPC)

The prosecution did not establish that Calimutan threw the stone at the
victim Cantre with the specific intent of killing, or at the very least, of harming the
victim Cantre. What is obvious to this Court was petitioner Calimutan’s intention to
drive away victim Cantre, and to protect his helper Bulalacao who was much
younger and smaller in built than the victim Cantre.

Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period of 4 months

of arresto mayor to a maximum period of 2 years and one day of prison
correccional. Petitioner is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as civil
indemnity for the latter’s death and 50,000 as moral damages.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-

G.R. CR No. 23306, dated 29 August 2001, affirming the Decision of the RTC in
Criminal Case No. 8184, dated 19 November 1998, is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner
Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide, under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and is accordingly sentenced
to imprisonment for a minimum period of 4 months of arresto mayor to a maximum
period of two years and one day of prision correccional. Petitioner Calimutan is further
ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim Cantre the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for the latter’s death and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.

PRINCIPLES:
 An accused in a criminal case may only be convicted if his or her guilt is established
by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand
absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error.
 Proximate cause is the cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
the result would not have occurred.
 Adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence, when not applicable
a. The suppression of not willful
b. The evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative
c. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties
d. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege
 Felonies, means by which they are committed (Art. 3, RPC)
a. Intentional felonies – act or omission is malicious, with deliberate intent
b. Culpable felonies – act or omission is not malicious, unintentional

EMERGENCY RECIT DIGEST:

Victim Cantre had a drinking spree. Going home, victim crossed paths with
Bulalacao and petitioner Calimutan. Believing that Bulalacao was the one responsible for
throwing stones at Cantre’s house on a previous night, Cantre punched Bulalacao. In
order to defend Bulalacao, Calimutan threw at the victim a stone (man’s fist) hitting the
left side of the latter’s back. Due to the incident, Cantre complained of backache and
stomachache, then later on died. The RTC and CA affirmed that the petitioner committed
homicide. Considering the autopsy reports and witness testaments, the SC ruled that the
petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of homicide, but of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide.