G.R. No.

139542 | June 21, 2001 Praeter Intentionem

I. Recit-ready Summary SC ruled that the crime committed for the death of Feliber was homicide and not murder,
This case is a simple altercation over traffic that was exacerbated by the use of a firearm. as the shooting was not attended by treachery because it was a chance encounter, and SC
had consistently held that chance encounters or crimes that were preceded by heated
There was a near collision of vehicles between Noel Andres and Inocencio Gonzales Jr. at altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused
the intersection near the Garden of Remembrance. Inside Noel’s car was his pregnant wife to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. Thus, Inocencio’s sudden attack due
Feliber, two-year-old son Kenneth, nephew Kevin, and sister-in-law. After they almost to his infuriation from Noel’s provocation was held to be without treachery. SC also held
collided, Noel tailed behind Inocencio’s car until he had the chance to cut him off to scold that the weapon used is not determinative of treachery.
him for his failure to observe traffic rules.
Further, the SC held that with the nature and location of the children’s injuries (metallic
There are two versions of what transpired. Noel said he calmly told Inocencio to be careful fragments on their faces) and the number of days required for their treatment (6 days), and
with his driving but saw that Inocencio was turning red in anger. He felt threatened so he the lack of intent to kill, the crime committed for the injuries sustained by the Kenneth and
went back to his vehicle but partially opened the car window to talk back to Inocencio’s Kevin were two counts of slight physical injuries only. As to the charge of attempted
son Dino. Suddenly, one of Noel’s passengers said, “binaril kami,” and saw his wife homicide, SC dismissed the same for evident lack of intent to kill Noel.
bloodied and unconscious.
As for the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong (praeter
Inocencio’s version states that Noel stood beside his car and repeatedly cursed him saying, intentionem), it was not convincingly proved and none can be considered in the imposition
“Putangina mo, ang tanda-tanda mo na, hindi ka pa marunong magmaneho. Ang bobo of penalties. It is obtained when there is a notable disparity between the means employed
mo.” Inocencio stayed in his car and replied, “Pasensiya na, hindi kita nakita. Nasilaw by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the
ako. Aksidente lang.” Inocencio’s son Dino arrived at the scene and confronted Noel. accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used,
Inocencio saw Noel reach for something inside his car and this prompted him to get his the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim.
gun as he perceived his son was in danger, and got out of his car ready to shoot. Seeing
that Noel did not have a weapon, he put his gun down. This is when the Inocencio's II. Facts of the Case
daughter Trisha arrived at the scene, walked past Dino and Noel, and pushed Inocencio A near collision of vehicles between Noel and Inocencio occurred at the intersection near
away. She hugged her father and in the process held his hand holding the gun. He tried to the Garden of Remembrance within the Loyola Memorial Park in Marikina. Inside Noel’s
free his hand. With Trisha's body weight pushing against him, he lost his balance and the car was his pregnant wife Feliber, two-year-old son Kenneth, nephew Kevin, and sister-
gun accidentally fired. The accused stated that he did not know he shot somebody until in-law Francar Valdez. After they almost collided, Noel tailed behind Inocencio’s car until
Noel’s sister-in-law got out of the vehicle carrying a bloodied small boy. he had the chance to cut him off to scold him for his failure to observe traffic rules.

Noel’s wife Feliber did not die instantaneously. She lived to give birth to a baby girl by There are two versions of what happened. Noel said he calmly told Inocencio to be careful
caesarian section and died the following morning. with his driving, to which Inocencio replied, “Accidents are accidents, what's your
problem?” He then saw that Inocencio was turning red in anger, felt threatened, and went
RTC rejected Inocencio’s theory that the shooting was accidental. It rendered judgment back to his vehicle but was blocked by the Inocencio's son Dino who said, "Anong
that the shooting was attended by treachery and therefore found Inocencio guilty of the problema mo sa erpat ko?" Noel immediately boarded his vehicle and partially opened the
complex crime of Murder for the death of Feliber, Frustrated Murder for the injuries car to talk back to Dino, and suddenly, one of his passengers said, “binaril kami,” and saw
sustained by Kenneth and Kevin, and Attempted Murder against Noel and sentenced him his pregnant wife bloodied and unconscious.
to death.

1
Criminal Law I (2019) PETITIONER: People of the PH
DIGEST AUTHOR: Doms RESPONDENT: Inocencio Gonzales, Jr.
 G.R. No. 139542 | June 21, 2001 Praeter Intentionem
People vs. Gonzales People vs. Gonzales

Inocencio’s version states that Noel stood beside his car and repeatedly cursed him saying, Considering the nature and location of the children's injuries and the number of days
“Putangina mo, ang tanda-tanda on a, hindi ka pa marunong magmaneho. Ang bobo mo.” required for their treatment, and the lack of intent to kill, the SC found that the crime
Inocencio stayed in his car and replied, “Pasensiya na, hindi kita nakita. Nasilaw ako. committed for the injuries sustained by the children were two counts of slight physical
Aksidente lang.” Inocencio’s son Dino arrived at the scene and confronted Noel. Inocencio injuries only. As to the charge of attempted homicide, SC dismissed the same for evident
saw Noel reach for something inside his car and this prompted him to get his gun, feeling lack of intent to kill Noel.
that his son was threatened, and got out of his car ready to shoot. However, he put his gun
down when he saw that Noel did not have a weapon. This is when the appellant’s daughter III. Issue/s
Trisha arrived at the scene, walked past Dino and Noel, and pushed the Inocencio away. 1. W/N the trial court erred when it failed to appreciate the mitigating
She hugged her father and in the process held his hand holding the gun. The appellant tried circumstances lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong (prater
to free his hand and with Trisha’s substantial body weight pushing against him the intentionem). (NO).
appellant lost his balance and the gun accidentally fired. The accused stated that he did not 2. W/N Gonzales is guilty of the complex crime of murder and two counts of frustrated
know he shot somebody until the private complainant’s sister-in-law, Francar Valdez, got murder. (NO).
out of the vehicle carrying a bloodied small boy.
IV. Holding/s
Noel’s wife Feliber did not die instantaneously. She lived to give birth to a baby girl by 1. NO, it was not convincingly proved and none can be considered in the
caesarian section and died the following morning on November 1, 1998. Cause of her imposition of penalties. It is obtained when there is a notable disparity between
death was a gunshot wound on the head. the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime
committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the
The trial court rejected Inocencio’s theory that the shooting was purely accidental and that crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and
he had no intention to shoot Noel much less his wife and children. Further, it ruled that the injury sustained by the victim.
treachery was present in the shooting. Inocencio was found guilty of the complex crime of 2. NO, SC ruled that the crime committed for the death of Feliber was homicide and
Murder for the death of Feliber, Frustrated Murder for the injuries sustained by Kenneth not murder, as the shooting was not attended by treachery because it was a chance
and Kevin, and Attempted Murder against Noel and sentenced to death. encounter, and SC had consistently held that chance encounters or crimes that were
preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of
The SC found that the shooting was not attended by treachery and that the crime committed opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack.
for the death of Feliber was homicide and not murder. The case at bar was a chance Thus, Inocencio’s sudden attack due to his infuriation from Noel’s provocation was
encounter, as both Inocencio and Noel were strangers before their vehicles almost collided. held to be without treachery. SC also held that the weapon used is not determinative
SC had consistently held that chance encounters or crimes that were preceded by heated of treachery. Additionally, the SC found that the crime committed for the injuries
altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused sustained by the children were two counts of slight physical injuries only,
to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. Thus, the sudden attack made by the considering its nature and location, as well as the number of days for the treatment.
accused due to his infuriation by reason of the victim's provocation was held to be without
treachery. The fact that the appellant fired his gun from behind the victim does not by itself V. Law or Doctrine Applied
amount to treachery. There is no evidence on record that the appellant deliberately Art. 13(3) of the RPC
positioned himself behind the victim to gain advantage over him when he fired the shot. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances;
SC also held that the use of a semi-automatic pistol does not necessarily imply treachery. (3) That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

2
Criminal Law I (2019) PETITIONER: People of the PH
DIGEST AUTHOR: Doms RESPONDENT: Inocencio Gonzales, Jr.
 G.R. No. 139542 | June 21, 2001 Praeter Intentionem
People vs. Gonzales People vs. Gonzales

Treachery • Doctors treated Kenneth and Kevin for extraction of metallic fragments on their
Treachery under par. 16 of Art. 14 of the RPC is defined as the deliberate employment of faces. They were discharged from the hospital six days later on November 6, 1998.
means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly • Trial court ordered Inocencio to pay the ff. civil liabilities (sustained by the SC):
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense To the private complainant Noel Andres:
which the intended victim might raise. a) the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Feliber;
b) the amount of P3,363,663.60 as indemnity for the loss of earning capacity of Feliber;
For treachery to be appreciated two elements must concur: 1) the employment of means c) the amount of P98,384.19 as funeral expenses;
of execution that would insure the safety of the accused from retaliatory acts of the d) the amount of P271,800.56 for the hospitalization expenses by the deceased Feliber and
intended victim and leaving the latter without an opportunity to defend himself and 2) the the amount of P23,622.58 representing the expenses for the untimely delivery of the baby;
e) the amount of P51,566.00 representing the hospitalization expenses of Kenneth;
means employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.|||
f) the amount of P150,000.00 as moral damages suffered for the untimely death of his wife
Feliber Andres and for the injuries caused to his son John Kenneth Andres;
VI. Disposition g) the amount of P50,000.00 for attorney's fees and a fee of P2,000.00 per appearance; and
WHEREFORE , the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED. The appellant is h) the costs of the suit.
hereby found guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber Andres and is sentenced to an To the private complainant Nicasio Valdez:
indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its medium period, as a) the amount of P73,824.75 as actual damages for the injuries of Kevin; and
minimum, to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as b) the amount of P75,000.00 as and by way of moral damages.
maximum. For each count of the slight physical injuries committed against Kenneth • Inocencio’s vehicle: Isuzu Esteem
Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor. • Noel’s vehicle: maroon Toyota FX
The pecuniary awards granted by the trial court are hereby sustained. SO ORDERED. o His car windows are heavily tinted so that a person outside the vehicle would
not be able to see if there are people inside.
VII. IMPORTANT Notes • The name of the Noel and Feliber’s baby is Ma. Clarisse Andres
• Trial court was RTC Marikina • Dissenting Opinion by Pardo, J. (joined by Puno, Kapunan, and Panganiban, JJ):
• It happened on October 31, 1998 The evidence plainly shows that he directly aimed his pre-loaded pistol with multi-missile
• RTC said that Inocencio owned a black Gluck 9 mm. automatic pistol; that the bullets, released its safety trigger and deliberately pulled the trigger aiming the gun at
said gun will never fire even if he drops it. However, Inocencio claims he owns a complainant Andres. What a poor shot he was. The bullet hit the innocent pregnant wife
semi-automatic and not an automatic pistol. of complainant.|
The stages before an automatic firearm would be capable of firing are as follows: 1) the loading of We are convinced that the shooting was attended by treachery that qualified the crime to
a bullet into the chamber of the gun; 2) the cocking of the hammer, if uncocked; 3) the releasing of murder aggravated by the use of a semi-automatic pistol specially fitted with murderous
the safety pin; 4) the pressing of the trigger to unleash the hammer so that the firing pin will hit the missile. The crime committed for the killing of Feliber was murder, qualified by treachery
cartridge to propel the bullet out to hit the target. It demonstrates that a gun will not fire even if the and aggravated by the use of firearm.||
bullet is loaded in its chamber if the hammer is uncocked; or even if cocked if the safety pin is
I vote to affirm the decision of the trial Court finding accused guilty of MURDER,
engaged; or even if the safety pin is disengaged if the trigger will not be pressed. However, even if
the gun is fired if it is not aimed and leveled to the target, the purpose of firing it shall not be qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use of firearm for the killing of Feliber
achieved. However, Inocencio claims he owns a semi-automatic and not an automatic pistol. Andres.
• Feliber was unemployed at the time but she was a registered nurse and had an earning VII. Random Facts
capacity. • Ponente: Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
• Feliber was shot on the forehead near the temporal region above the left eye.
3
Criminal Law I (2019) PETITIONER: People of the PH
DIGEST AUTHOR: Doms RESPONDENT: Inocencio Gonzales, Jr.