G.R. No. and Date: G.R. No. L-10956, December 7, 1915

FACTS:
On November 29, 1914, in a house in Ambos Camarines, the appellant, Ignacio Reodique, picked up an air rifle belonging to Candido Sabit. Before handling it, Reodique asked Sabit if it was loaded, to which Sabit answered in the negative. After receiving instructions on its use, Reodique discharged the rifle while it was pointed at Isabel Dalmita, a 14-year-old girl. Contrary to Sabit’s assurance, the rifle was loaded, and the shot struck Dalmita in the left breast. She died approximately nine days later. Reodique was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines of the crime of causing death by gross or reckless negligence and was sentenced to prision correccional for one year and six months, with corresponding accessories, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the gunshot wound inflicted by Reodique was the proximate cause of Isabel Dalmita’s death.
2. Whether Reodique’s act constituted gross or reckless negligence under the Penal Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

1. On the Causation of Death: The Court held that the gunshot wound was the cause of death. Although there was no direct medical testimony, the evidence established a clear concatenation of events: Dalmita sustained a deep, bleeding gunshot wound to the chest, exhibited symptoms of illness (fever, cold extremities) thereafter, and died within days. The Court rejected the defense’s theory that death was caused by a traditional medicinal potion (dogong-naga) administered by the mother, finding no credible evidence that the potion was poisonous or that there was any intent to harm. The trial court’s factual finding on this point was sustained.

2. On the Nature of Negligence: The Court found Reodique guilty of gross or reckless negligence (imprudencia temeraria). The act belonged to the first class of negligent acts under the Penal Code, which involves a failure to exercise the most common and ordinary prudence. By discharging a firearman instrument inherently dangerousinside a room where people were present, without personally verifying if it was unloaded despite being told it was not, and while pointing it at another person, Reodique demonstrated a lack of the most elementary care and foresight. His negligence was not merely simple or incidental but was characterized by improvidence and thoughtlessness.

The Court distinguished this case from U.S. vs. Catangay and U.S. vs. Barnes, where the discharges were found to be purely accidental and involuntary (e.g., caused by stumbling). Here, the discharge was a direct result of Reodique’s voluntary act of pulling the trigger while handling the gun in a careless manner within a populated space.

Therefore, the conviction for homicide through reckless negligence was proper. The appealed judgment was affirmed in its entirety.