G.R. No. 172695 29 June 2007
FACTS:
In the evening of 5 November 1993, the accused-appellant came home drunk and angry. His father-in-law (Guillermo) tried to subdue him but to no avail which caused the former to leave the house. As he was leaving, Guillermo saw him take out his sling and arrow. Consorcia, the accused’s wife, was heard crying and screaming. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was seen carrying the bloodied body of Consorcia out of the house and was later taken to the hospital but to no avail. Cause of death was the cut jugular vein caused by a fatal weapon which could have been a “pointed instrument like a nail.”
ISSUE:
Whether the fatal injury inflicted on the victim was accidental
RULING:
The essential requisites for this exempting circumstance are (1) a person is performing a lawful act (2) with due care; (3) he causes and injury to another by mere accident (4) without fault or intention of causing it. The mere possession of sling and arrow is punishable under the law. In penalizing the act, the consideration of the deadly weapon was used for no legal purpose, but to inflict injury. Also, the fact that the accused-appellant disappeared while his wife was in the hospital is unbecoming of a husband with a dying wife. Due to the weakness of the defense’s evidence, the claim that the act was accidental cannot be appreciated in favour of the accused.
Wherefore, the accused was found guilty of the crime of Parricide wherein the court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
