[G.R. No. 60118.
February 28,
1985.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, , vs. ADVENTOR
ITLANAS y BAUTISO,
FACT:
Records show that appellant Adventor Itlanas y Bautiso was the oiler in
Tugboat M/V SAN PEDRO SAN PABLO, which delivers cement to the
different places in Visayas and Mindanao. There were sixteen (16) crew
members in said tugboat,
On July 2, 1978, the tugboat unloaded the 35,000 bags of cement at
Zamboanga City port. In the evening of July 11, 1978, the tugboat
started its voyage back to Danao City, with apprentice Manuel Flores
joining the group.
Sgt. Amelito Perez was playing cards with a crew member inside the
sergeant's cabin. CIC Edmar Mag-aso was on deck duty, unarmed.
Whereupon, appellant Itlanas went to the upper deck and took the
armalite of Mag-aso which was then hanging on the wall. He then went
back to the lower deck and hid himself behind the steering wheel facing
Sgt. Perez' cabin. When the latter's companion left the cabin, appellant
Itlanas approached Sgt. Perez who was then seated on a cot still
holding the playcards and, suddenly, fired at the latter, hitting him on
the neck and killing him instantaneously.
Thereafter, appellant went up the upper deck where he was met by CIC
Mag-aso who tried to grab the armalite. CIC Mag-aso failed and,
instead, he was fired upon by Itlanas, killing him on the spot.
Captain Gaje and the other members of the group went out of their
respective rooms and saw the dead bodies of Sgt. Perez and CIC Mag-
aso, and apprentice Manuel Flores who was profusely bleeding, having
been hit by where the latter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accussed should be criminally liable for the death of Manuel
Flores who was killed by stray bullets
RULING:
YES. With respect to the crime committed by the appellant on the deceased
Manuel Flores, who was killed by stray bullets when CIC Mag-aso was shot by
him, appellant is guilty of homicide.
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "[c]riminal liability shall be
incurred: (1) by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended."
The provision of the law is so clear that there is no room for interpretation.