Dear PAO,

My brother had a heated argument with our elderly neighbor over the noise from his music room. In the incident, my brother uttered words such as, “Matanda ka na pero hindi ka pa rin marunong makipagkapwa-tao.” Moreover, out of anger due to the relentless and aggressive words coming from the elderly neighbor, my brother threatened to hit him by saying, “Hahampasin kita d’yan eh,” and also warned of a lawsuit. Later, we were told that the neighbor suffered a heart attack. My brother never intended this to happen. However, someone informed us that he might be held liable for homicide since the alleged death was the logical consequence of his threats to the elderly neighbor. Is this true, Chief?

Berlin

Dear Berlin,

Foremost, please be advised that a conviction cannot be based on mere probabilities or possibilities, and the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment precisely because the due process clause embodied in the Constitution demands no less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On the subject of your query, to determine whether your brother may be held liable for the death of your neighbor — it is important first to determine if the acts committed by your brother constituted a crime and, if so, whether the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed. (Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code)

Apropos with the foregoing, it would appear that your brother may be held liable for other light threats for his action of threatening your elderly neighbor of some harm out of the heat of anger and by his subsequent act showing that he did not persist with the idea involved in his threat, viz.:

“Article 285. Other light threats. – The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon: x x x

“2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Article 282 of this Code. x x x.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Be that as it may, it is important to emphasize that the commission of other light threats, albeit not excluding the possibility of the resulting death, equally does not necessarily dictate a direct connection to it. To repeat, the law requires that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed.

In line with the foregoing, the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Cafranca v. People (GR 244071, May 15, 2024), penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, elucidates the importance of an autopsy to establish the nexus between the felonious act and the resulting death to establish the crime of homicide/parricide, to wit:

“The lack of proper autopsy, or the total absence thereof, has previously been taken against the prosecution’s case.

“In People v. Matyaong, accused was convicted of parricide by the lower courts for the death of his wife, who died two days after the former beat the latter with a piece of wood. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the beating was the proximate cause of victim’s death. The Court considered the lack of ante-mortem and post-mortem examination that would ascertain the precise cause of death and the fact that the victim was reportedly suffering from other afflictions prior to and after the assault.

“Meanwhile, in People v. Palalon, the victim contracted a fever and died two days after accused struck the victim with the back of his hand. The Court acquitted the accused of the charge of homicide for failure to establish the cause of death. In rejecting the findings of the examining physician who had linked the blows sustained by the victim to his death, the Court observed the lack of proper autopsy made on the body, the examination appearing to have been incomplete, and the conclusions partly based upon the statements of the members of the family of the deceased.

“Significantly, the Court has also emphasized the importance of an autopsy even in cases where the accused’s conviction was upheld.

“In Garcia v. People, accused punched and struck the victim with a bottle, but the victim was able to escape to his home, where he was later found unconscious and salivating. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, and autopsy confirmed that he died of myocardial infarction. The Court affirmed accused’s conviction for homicide and rejected the defense that only slight physical injuries were inflicted on the deceased. Relying on the autopsy report and the testimonies of the medical doctors, the Court concluded that the myocardial infraction suffered by the victim was the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony that accused intended to commit.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Consequently, the foregoing cases illustrate the burden on the part of the prosecution in holding a man liable for the demise of another, more so when the felonious act committed does not ordinarily result in the death of a person, such as in your query where the facts started with a verbal altercation and eventually with the death of a party due to heart attack.

Thus, as case law instructs us — whether an accused can be further held liable for the resulting death would highly depend upon proof of connection. As held by the high court, such evidence can be best provided through an autopsy.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]