View full case

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO ACURAM

FACTS:

The appellant, Orlando Acuram, was charged with the crime of murder for allegedly shooting Rolando Manabat on June 29, 1991, causing his death the following day. The incident occurred when Rolando and his companions were waiting for a ride on the national highway in El Salvador, Misamis Oriental. They flagged down a passing jeepney, which swerved dangerously towards them. Rolando shouted at the jeepney, and in response, two gunshots rang out in the air. Rolando was wounded on the right knee and was brought to the hospital, where he eventually died due to massive blood loss. The El Salvador police conducted an investigation and discovered that appellant Acuram, who was a policeman, was among the passengers of the jeepney and had a firearm at the time of the incident. Appellant denied firing his rifle and claimed it was impossible for him to do so since he was seated between the driver and the driver's father-in-law. The trial court found appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Appellant appealed the decision, raising several errors allegedly committed by the trial court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender;

  2. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery; and

  3. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime.

  4. Whether the absence of paraffin and ballistic tests negate the appellant's guilt.

  5. Whether the lack of prompt and proper medical attention constitutes an efficient intervening cause that exempts the appellant from criminal responsibility.

RULING:

  1. The appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Being placed under restraint by his superiors and not voluntarily submitting to the investigating authorities does not qualify as voluntary surrender as contemplated by law.

  2. The killing was not qualified by treachery. There was no proof that the accused consciously adopted a mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself. The shooting was a result of a rash and impetuous impulse.

  3. The trial court did not err in ruling that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. While there was no direct evidence positively identifying the appellant as the one who fired the gun, circumstantial evidence, including his skills in handling firearms, his possession of an armalite rifle during the incident, and the recovery of empty shells of an armalite rifle at the crime scene, were enough to sustain his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. The absence of paraffin and ballistic tests does not conclusively show that the appellant did not fire a gun. Negative findings from the paraffin test could be explained if a person discharged a firearm with gloves on or if he thoroughly washed his hands. Therefore, the absence of these tests is not sufficient to negate the appellant's guilt.

  5. The delay in giving proper medical attendance to the victim does not break the causal connection between the appellant's wrongful act and the injuries sustained by the victim. The attending doctors in this case were not proven to be negligent in treating the victim. The proximate cause of the victim's death is the shooting by the appellant. The perceived delay in medical treatment does not constitute an efficient intervening cause. As such, the appellant cannot be exempted from criminal responsibility based on this argument.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Voluntary surrender requires the accused to give himself up and submit unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and expense of searching for and capturing him.

  • Treachery can only be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance if it is proven that the accused consciously adopted a mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.

  • Conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence as long as there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed and that the accused committed the crime. Circumstantial evidence can have similar weight and probative value as direct evidence.

  • Negative findings from paraffin tests do not conclusively prove a person's innocence of firing a gun.

  • The absence of nitrates in a paraffin test can be explained if a person discharged a firearm with gloves on or if he thoroughly washed his hands thereafter.

  • The delay in giving proper medical attendance does not break the causal connection between the defendant's wrongful act and the injuries sustained by the victim.

  • The perceived delay in medical treatment does not constitute an efficient intervening cause that exempts the defendant from criminal responsibility.

  • The proximate cause of the victim's death is the defendant's wrongful act.