44.People of the Philippines vs. Armando Delector; GR No. 200026, October 4, 2017.

Article 12, paragraph 4

Facts: At about 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon of August 8, 1997, the victim Vicente Delector was talking with his
brother, Antolin, near his residence in Barangay Diaz in Gandara, Samar when Armando Deflector shot
Vicente twice. Vicente was rushed to the Gandara District Hospital, but he was later on transferred to the
Samar Provincial Hospital where he succumbed to his gunshot wounds at about 1:00 a.m. of the next day.
Vicente's son, Arnel, attested that the armando had fired his gun (revolver) at his father from their mother's
house, and had hit his father who was then talking with Antolin. Corroborating Arnel's identification was
Raymond Reyes, who had happened to be along after having come from his school. The attending phycisian
also testified that the victim identified Armando as the one who shot him
The defense of the accused is that it was an accident. Armando and his son claim that Vicente went to their
house looking for him, but he had earlier left to go to their mother's house nearby in order to avoid a
confrontation with Vicente; however, Vicente followed him to their mother's house and dared him to come out,
compelling Antolin to intervene and attempt to pacify Vicente. Instead, Vicente attacked Antolin, which forced
the accused to go out of their mother's house. Seeing Vicente to be carrying his gun, he tried to wrest the gun
from Vicente, and they then grappled with each other for control of the gun. At that point, the gun accidentally
fired, and Vicente was hit.
Issue: Is the accused guilty of murder or homicide
Whether or not the exempting circumstance of accident is present.
Ruling: The accused is guilty of homicide since neither treachery nor evident premeditation had been
established against the accused. For treachery to be appreciated, therefore, two elements must concur,
namely: (1) that the means of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself
or herself, or retaliate; and (2) that the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted, that is,
the means, method or form of execution must be shown to be deliberated upon or consciously adopted by the
offender.
Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal liability. The elements of this
exempting circumstance are, therefore, that the accused: (1) is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3)
causes injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without fault or intention of causing it.
Accident could not be appreciated herein as an exempting circumstance simply because the accused did not
establish that he had acted with due care, and without fault or intention of causing the injuries to the victim. The
gun was a revolver that would not fire unless there was considerable pressure applied on its trigger, or its
hammer was pulled back and released. The assertion of accident could have been accorded greater credence
had there been only a single shot fired, for such a happenstance could have been attributed to the
unintentional pulling of the hammer during the forceful grappling for control of the gun. Yet, the revolver fired
twice, which we think eliminated accident. Had the accused really been grappling and twisting the victim's right
hand which was holding a gun, the latter would not have sustained the wounds. It was improbable that the gun
would fire not only once but twice and both times hitting the victim, had its trigger not been pulled. Further, the
location of the gunshot wounds belies and negated accused claim of accident.
Also, the Court finds incredible [the] accused (appellant's) allegation that he did not know that the victim was
hit. He admitted there were two gun reports. The natural tendency of (a) man in his situation would (be to)
investigate what was hit. He surely must have known his brother was hit as he even said he let go of the gun.
Then he said his brother went home so he also went home. It is odd that he did not attempt to help or show
concern for the victim, his brother, had his intention been really merely to pacify
 45. People of the Philippines vs. Macal; GR No. 211062, January 13, 2016. \

ARTICLE 12, article 246

Facts: Version of the Prosecution

Angeles the mother of auria testified that at around 1:20 in the morning of February 12, 2003, she, her children
Catherine, Jessica, Auria and Arvin were walking home where some friends tagged along with them. Along the way,
Angeles and her group met Auria's husband, the accused appellant who joined them in walking back to their house.
When they arrived at the house, the group proceeded to the living room except for Auria and the accused-appellant
who went straight to their bedroom. Angeles then heard her daughter Auria shouting, "mother help me I am going to
be killed." Upon hearing Auria's plea for help, Angeles and the rest of her companions raced towards the bedroom
but they found the door of the room locked. Arvin kicked open the door of the bedroom and there they all saw a
bloodied Auria on one side of the room. Next to Auria was the accused-appellant who was then trying to stab
himself with the use of an improvised bladed weapon (belt buckle). Auria was immediately taken to a hospital, on
board a vehicle owned by a neighbor, but was pronounced dead on arrival. Angeles declared that the accused-
appellant jumped over the fence and managed to escape. This was corroborated by another witness Erwin.
Version of the Defense
The accused-appellant claims that the stabbing was accidental and not intentional. When the accused-appellant
arrived home. He was warned by Arvin, his brother-in-law, not to go inside the bedroom where his wife was with a
man for he might be killed. Ignoring Arvin's admonition, the accused-appellant kicked the door but it was opened
from the inside. After the bedroom door was opened, the accused-appellant saw his wife and a man seated beside
each other conversing. The accused-appellant went out of the room, got a knife and delivered a stab blow towards
the man but the latter was shielded by Auria. In the process, the stab blow landed on Auria. After Auria was
accidentally stabbed, the man ran outside and fled. The accused-appellant testified that out of frustration for not
killing the man, he wounded himself on the chest. He then left the house and went to Eastern Visayas Regional
Medical Center (EVRMC) for medical treatment.
Benito attested that he came to know the accused-appellant while they were seated next to each other on board a
Christopher Bus bound for Tacloban City. The accused-appellant convinced Benito to simply go home with him as it
is already past midnight. Once they got home, the accused-appellant went inside the house while Benito opted to
stay by the main door. The accused-appellant asked someone from the living room the whereabouts of his wife,
Auria. Benito testified that a female informed the accused-appellant that Auria was inside the bedroom but advised
him not to go in as Auria was not alone in the room. The accused-appellant proceeded to the bedroom and was able
to get inside the room. Moments later, Benito heard a thudding sound coming from the bedroom. Then, Benito saw
a man running out of the house. Sensing trouble, Benito immediately proceeded to the bus terminal.
Issue: Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of parricide.
Whether or not defense by accident is an exempting circumstance that can be applied
Ruling: NO. All the Essential Elements of Parricide Duly Established and Proven by the Prosecution

Art 246: Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendants or other
descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The stabbing incident was acknowledged by the accused-
appellant himself during his direct examination by the defense.

NO: The defense of accident presupposes lack of intention to kill. Given these testimonies, the accused-appellant's
defense of accident is negated as he was carrying out an unlawful act at the time of the incident.
It also bears stressing that in raising the defense of accident, the accused-appellant had the inescapable burden of
proving, by clear and convincing evidence, of accidental infliction of injuries on the victim. In so doing, the accused-
appellant had to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
The accused also said that he has the intention to kill the other man so there is intent.