View full case

PEOPLE v. ORLITO VILLACORTA

FACTS:

The case involves the appeal of accused-appellant Orlito Villacorta, who was found guilty of murder by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and payment of civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision.

The incident occurred on January 23, 2002, in Navotas, Metro Manila. Accused-appellant, armed with a sharpened bamboo stick, allegedly attacked and stabbed Danilo Salvador Cruz, resulting in his immediate death. Witnesses Cristina Mendeja and Dr. Domingo Belandres, Jr. testified during trial. Mendeja, who owned a sari-sari store where the incident happened, stated that Villacorta suddenly appeared and stabbed Cruz without uttering a word. Villacorta then fled, while Mendeja and her neighbor brought Cruz to the hospital. Dr. Belandres, through Cruz's medical chart and diagnosis, determined that Cruz died of tetanus infection secondary to the stab wound.

Villacorta, in his defense, denied stabbing Cruz and claimed that after finishing work, he went home, drank coffee, and went out to buy cigarettes. Cruz allegedly put his arm around Villacorta's shoulder, prompting Villacorta to box him. Villacorta only learned about Cruz's death upon his arrest.

The RTC found Villacorta guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Villacorta filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, raising issues such as the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the alleged incorrect appreciation of treachery by the trial court, and contending that, at most, he should be held liable for slight physical injuries.

The case involves an appeal by the accused, Villacorta, challenging the decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that found him guilty of the crime of murder. The facts of the case are as follows: In the early morning of January 23, 2002, the accused allegedly stabbed the victim, Cruz, in front of a store owned by a prosecution witness named Mendeja. The witness testified that she saw the accused stab Cruz and immediately ran after him. The accused argued that Mendeja's account of the incident was inconsistent and contrary to normal human experience. He pointed out that Mendeja did not shout or call for help when the stabbing occurred, and that she was the only one who chased after him. The accused also questioned Mendeja's ability to vividly recognize him as the perpetrator, given the swift and sudden nature of the stabbing. Additionally, the accused raised doubts about Mendeja's claim that the murder weapon, a bamboo stick, was left at her store. However, the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Mendeja's testimony credible and rejected the accused's arguments. They held that the inconsistencies pointed out by the accused were trivial and did not undermine the fundamental fact that the accused stabbed Cruz. Furthermore, the court found that the accused's denial was uncorroborated and weak in comparison to Mendeja's positive identification. The court also noted that there was no reason or motivation for Mendeja to fabricate the accusation against the accused. Finally, the court acknowledged the accused's argument that he should only be held liable for slight physical injuries, as the proximate cause of Cruz's death was a tetanus infection and not the stab wound.

acts: In this case, the accused, Cruz, was charged with the crime of murder for stabbing the victim, Santos. It was alleged that on January 23, 2002, Cruz stabbed Santos with a knife, causing him to sustain a stab wound. Santos was brought to the Tondo Medical Center and received emergency medical treatment. However, the prosecution did not present evidence of the medical treatment received by Santos at the Tondo Medical Center or any follow-up medical treatment for his stab wound. On February 14, 2002, Santos was brought to another hospital for symptoms of severe tetanus infection and unfortunately, he died the following day. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to present evidence regarding the emergency medical treatment and subsequent visits to hospitals by the victim or his activities between January 23 to February 14, 2002. The Court cited a similar case, Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, where the accused hacked the victim with a bolo, causing him to sustain an incised wound. The victim was treated by a doctor and later rushed to the hospital due to lockjaw and convulsions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the trial court.

  3. Assuming the accused committed a crime, whether or not he could be held liable only for slight physical injuries.

RULING:

  1. The guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to the presence of an efficient intervening cause, i.e., tetanus infection, which led to the death of the victim.

  2. Treachery as a qualifying circumstance was properly appreciated, as the mode of attack left the victim with no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.

  3. The accused-appellant was found guilty of slight physical injuries since the stab wound was not the proximate cause of death, and there was no clear intent to kill established beyond doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Proximate Cause: Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred.

  2. Treason (Article 14, Paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code): Treachery is present when an offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

  3. Slight Physical Injuries (Article 266, Revised Penal Code): The definition and punishment for slight physical injuries, including the penalty of arresto menor, which spans from one day to thirty days.

  4. Burden of Proof: The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, including establishing clear and credible intent to kill for homicide or murder convictions.

  5. Efficient Intervening Cause: If another event breaks the natural sequence of events leading to the injury or death, it may exculpate the accused from liability for the subsequent injury or death.

  6. Moral Damages (Article 2219, Civil Code): Moral damages may be awarded for physical injuries resulting from a criminal act, compensating for mental anguish and serious anxiety.