G.R. No. 213792 and G.R. No. 213886, June 22, 2015
GUILLERMO WACOY y BITOL and JAMES QUIBAC y RAFAEL, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Guillermo Wacoy and James Quibac were charged with Homicide for the death of Elner Aro. Prosecution witness Edward Benito testified that on April 11, 2004, he saw Aro sprawled on the ground, with Wacoy kicking Aro’s stomach twice. As Aro stood up, Quibac punched him in the stomach, causing him to collapse. Aro was hospitalized, diagnosed with blunt abdominal trauma and a perforated ileum. He suffered cardiac arrest during surgery, was taken out of the hospital against medical advice, and died the next day. The death certificate cited cardiopulmonary arrest antecedent to a perforated ileum and peritonitis secondary to mauling, while an autopsy found the cause to be rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt traumatic injuries. The petitioners denied the charges, claiming Aro was drunk and unruly, and that a fight ensued between Wacoy and Aro’s companion, Quiniquin Carias, which Quibac pacified. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction to Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, and adjusted the penalty. Petitioners sought review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling. The crime committed was Homicide, not Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray. The elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray require a confused and tumultuous quarrel involving several persons where the actual killer cannot be ascertained. Here, the evidence established that only two persons, Wacoy and Quibac, attacked a single defenseless victim, Aro. There was no reciprocal aggression or confused affray among several persons, and the assailants were clearly identified. Their acts of mauling Aro were the proximate cause of his death. The Court rejected Wacoy’s contention that they should only be liable for slight physical injuries under Article 49 of the RPC, as the resulting felony (Homicide) was a necessary consequence of their intentional assault. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was correctly appreciated, as their purpose was only to inflict physical harm, not to kill. The penalties and damages imposed by the CA were upheld.