G.R. No. 1703 : April 1, 1905

FACTS:
In the early morning of March 22, 1902, in Guimbal, Iloilo, the appellant, Eusebio Capaducia, a Constabulary private, was on patrol with four other soldiers. They heard a disturbance inside the house of Matias Tamisin and entered to investigate. They found Apolonio Camdao, a man known to be insane, who was making noise while buying fish. When Capaducia threatened to jail him if he did not quiet down, Camdao responded with insults. Despite advice from onlookers and his own companions that Camdao was insane, Capaducia repeatedly struck the victim with his gun’s ramrod. As Camdao was leaving via the stairs, Capaducia kicked him violently, causing him to fall approximately seven feet to the ground, where his body landed on a stone. After the patrol left, Camdao was found dead by town policemen. An autopsy revealed several bruises and indicated that death resulted from the blows, particularly to the back, likely causing a liver injury.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused, Eusebio Capaducia, is guilty of the crime of homicide for causing the death of Apolonio Camdao.

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The Court held that the death of Camdao was the direct and proximate result of the ill-treatment inflicted by Capaducia, specifically the blows and the kick that caused the fatal fall. The physical condition of the victim (whether he was weak or robust) is immaterial to the accused’s criminal liability, as an aggressor is responsible for all consequences of his unlawful acts. The Court found no aggravating circumstances present. However, it recognized the extenuating circumstance under Article 9(3) of the Penal Code, as the accused only intended to punish the victim and had no intent to kill. Consequently, the penalty was applied in its minimum degree. The Court modified the trial court’s judgment by deleting the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as it was imposed in violation of the Penal Code.