THE PEOPLE

APPELLANT)

OF THE

PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE)

VS.

DOMINGO URAL (ACCUSED-

L-30801 MARCH 27 1974

J. AQUINO
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE

CFI OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR

FACTS:
-

Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a policeman inside the jail where he
was boxing prisoner Napola (who was imprisoned for being drunk). When Napola fell to the
ground he U kicked him and poured some liquid on N and then ignited Ns body.
Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he sustained 2 nd degree burns on the
arms, neck, left side of the face and one half of the body including the back. She also
testified that without any medical intervention, the burns would have caused death
Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated burn as the cause of death.
During the trial, the prosecutors failed to present the detention prisoners who saw the
burning of Napola as witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased
Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and was
ordered to pay for costs

ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Held:
-

TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder.

Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he heard a scream for help from
Napola whose shirt was in flames when found by him, he removed the shirt, but did not
summon the doctor because he thought that the burns were not serious.
o SC: this statement cannot prevail over the testimony of Alberio
o This statement does not prove that he was not the one who burned Napola, at most
this could only mean that he was alarmed by the consequences of his evil act
Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying that he was not listed as a
prosecution witness and that he was convicted of murder in the past
o Wouldnt preclude him from being a credible witness.
o Since there was no police investigation (accused a police officer), the investigation
that ensued was done by a special counsel of the fiscals office. A possible
explanation of alberio not being listed at first.
o The statements of the witnesses for the defense were not inconsistent with that of
Alberios.
Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in Alberios testimony.
The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater than what was intended).
o Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1).
o TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating circumstance that the offender had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
No intent to kill but only to maltreat the drunk napola who might have been
making a nuisance of himself
He realized the fearful consequence of his felonious act, he allowed Napola to
secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary
Since the mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance, TC correctly
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for
murder.

DECISION: TC decision AFFIRMED.