Digest.docx

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NOEL T. SALES (G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011) SEPTEMBER 9, 2016 / RUSSELL JAY Subject: Criminal Law 1- Proximate Cause Ponente: Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo Doctrine: In order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator. FACTS: In the night of September 2002 in Camarines Sur, appellant Noel T. Sales beaten his two sons Noel Jr. and Noelmar because they failed to return home after joining the fluvial procession of Our Lady of Penafracia. Sales whipped his son with a piece of wood approximately one meter in lenght and one and a half inches in diameter. After he was finished beating his sons, his wife, Maria, noticed that there was a crack in the head of Noemar so they brought him to a quack doctor, who said that Noemar was already dead. Appellant held Noemar while on their way to the crossroad and observed his difficulty in breathing. The pupils of Noemar’s eyes were also moving up and down. Appellant heard him say that he wanted to sleep and saw him pointing to his chest in pain. However, they waited in vain since a vehicle never came. It was then that Noemar died. Appellant thus decided to just bring Noemar back to their house. The wake of the child lasted only for a day and his body was never examined by a physician. Sales surrendered to the police the day after. RTC found Sales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Sales appealed to CA but the CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Appellant raised the argument that it was at this moment that Noemar died, not during his whipping. To substantiate his claim, appellant presented his wife, Maria, who testified that Noemar indeed suffered seizures, but this was due to epilepsy. ISSUE: WON Sales was responsible for the death of Noemar. RULING: YES. Appellant attempts to evade criminal culpability by arguing that he merely intended to discipline Noemar and not to kill him. However, the relevant portion of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code states: Art. 4. Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall be incurred: By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. xxxx

In order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator. Here, there is no doubt appellant in beating his son Noemar and inflicting upon him physical injuries, committed a felony. As a direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child, he expired. Appellant’s criminal liability for the death of his son, Noemar, is thus clear. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.