One of the common defenses of an accused charged with a crime that causes injury or death to another is lack of intent to kill and it is only due to accident. This is one of the circumstances enumerated in Article 12 (4) of the Revised Penal Code that exempts a person from criminal liability. To be able to invoke this exempting circumstance what must the accused prove? What kind of act/s on the part of the accused may be considered as accidental as to exempt him/her from criminal liability? These are the issues resolved in this case of Rico Viray.
Rico is legally married to Bella with one-year-old son Brylle. Their marriage however was quite shaky and problematic because Rico is unemployed and would always come home drunk and force sex on Bella. In fact, Bella had two miscarriages after their first child. The couple’s source of income is only from a store put up by Bella which is not however earning enough. So Bella often had problems with money and was very much worried for the checks she issued which are not sufficiently funded.
One time at around 11 p.m., Rico came home drunk and went to their bedroom where Brylle was sleeping under the care of his yaya, Lynn. Due to the loud voices of the quarreling couple, Lynn was awakened and saw Rico get a gun from a drawer. So she went out of the room because of fear. After a few moments Lynn heard Bella’s loud voice saying “Sige patayin mo ako, patayin mo na kami ng anak ko.” Then Lynn heard a gunshot. She thus got so scared and went out of the house to go to the house of the Barangay Chairman which is just five meters away. Ten minutes later, she saw Rico came out and ask her to get a taxi to bring the wounded Bella to the hospital. Then Rico brought Bella to the hospital while Lynn was left behind to take care of Brylle. She tried to call up Bella’s sister, Cathy, to inform her of the incident, but she could not get any connection.
Upon reaching the hospital, Bella was not immediately attended to and operated on, so she succumbed to the injuries sustained. Post mortem examination showed that she died due to a gunshot wound with the slug hitting and entering the left thigh directed slightly forward and upward into the pelvic cavity, partially transecting the left internal iliac artery and the small intestines with the slug lodging just underneath the uterus in front of the sacrum where it was recovered. With such finding the doctor concluded that the muzzle of the gun could not have been less than one foot away from Bella and that grappling for its possession was impossible because the trajectory of the bullet was upward and there are no smudges or signs of close firing.
A paraffin test was also conducted on both hands of Bella and Rico. The test shows that Bella’s hands are negative of nitrates but Rico’s right hand is positive thereof indicating that only Rico fired a gun.
Thus, after the necessary preliminary investigation, Rico was charged with parricide for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shooting Bella with a gun of unknown caliber with intent to kill and evident premeditation, hitting her on the left hip thereby inflicting a fatal gunshot wound that was the direct and immediate cause of her death.
The prosecution presented seven witnesses headed by Lynn and the medical experts who examined Bella, proving the facts above set forth. Only Rico testified for the defense, denying the charge and claiming that the killing was accidental as it happened while he got the gun and attempted to kill himself because of Bella’s pestering. He said that when he was about to end his life, his son Brylle woke up, walked into the space between them as Bella blocked Brylle’s way with her right knee. In the process, he said that he tried to get possession and control of the gun from Bella. He raised his arm holding the gun passing over the left leg of Bella but the gun went off.
The Lower Court however did not believe Rico’s defense and convicted him of parricide and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of 40 years of reclusion perpetua plus payment of indemnity to Bella’s heirs.
Rico appealed the decision to the Supreme Court mainly on the ground that the killing was accidental as he had no intention to kill his wife and the incident occurred only when he grappled for possession of the gun to prevent his wife from killing herself. So he contended that he is exempt from criminal liability pursuant to Article 142 (4) of the RPC.
The Supreme Court however still found Rico guilty of parricide. First, because such Article presupposes that the act done was lawful. Here, Rico drew a weapon in the course of a quarrel, which is unlawful as it at least constitutes light threats. Besides, the gun he used was not even licensed or registered in his name, hence he could have been charged with illegal possession of firearms. Secondly, Rico’s claim that he and his wife grappled for the possession of the gun as he tried to prevent his wife from killing herself is belied by the findings of the medico legal officer which shows that grappling for the possession of the gun was impossible as the trajectory of the bullet was upwards and there were no smudges or signs of close firing. The paraffin test also shows that Bella did not fire a gun as her hands were negative of nitrates, and that she was not grappling with Rico when it went off (People vs. Nepomuceno, G.R. 127818, November 11, 1998).
* * *
Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com