CRIM 1 – AGUILAR
Digest by JCI Carmen
Elements of Criminal Liability – Constructive Intent – Culpa – Negligence
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
People v Pugay
[G.R. No. 74324] [November 17, 1988] [MEDIALDEA, J.]
Plaintiffs-appellants: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Defendant-appellant: FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA, & BENJAMIN SAMSON y MAGDALENA
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CASE SUMMARY
Trigger word/s: Negligence, conspiracy to commit crime
FACTS: On May 19, 1982 in Rosario, Cavite, the accused-appellants Pugay and Samson saw the victim,
Bayani Miranda in the town fiesta fair. With the intention to make fun of the victim, Pugay poured gasoline on
the victim. Afterwards, Samson set Miranda on fire. A few hours after the incident, accused-appellants gave
their written statements to the police. Pugay claimed that he thought the can he poured on the victim
contained water.
HELD: Pugay was held guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. He should have known from the
smell that the can contained gasoline. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid the
undesirable consequences of his actions and the actions that may be committed by his companions.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS
● On May 19, 1982 in Rosario, Cavite, the accused-appellants Pugay and Samson saw the victim,
Bayani Miranda in the town fiesta fair.
● They started making fun of him and tickling him. Eventually, Pugay poured gasoline on the victim.
● Eduardo Gabion, witness to the crime, was reading comics in a nearby ferris wheel. He tried to stop
Pugay from pouring the gasoline but he was already in the process of doing so. Afterwards, Samson
set Miranda on fire. The deceased was then brought to the Grace Hospital for treatment.
● A few hours after the incident, accused-appellants gave their written statements to the police. Pugay
claimed that he thought the can contained water, while Samson alleged that he did not see who set
the victim on fire.
● During trial, both of the accused repudiated their statements alleging that their statements were
extracted by force and shifted blame to Gabion. The Court stated that Gabion’s testimony remains
unaffected by the self-serving and uncorroborated statements of the accused-appellants.
CASE TRAIL

Court of First Instance of Cavite [Accused guilty of MURDER, but crediting in favor of Pugay
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention]
o Pugay – sentenced to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum
o Samson – sentenced to penalty of reclusion perpetua
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD
W/N the accused-appellants committed conspiracy in committing the crime [NO]
● There is no proof showing that there was conspiracy to commit the crime. There was no animosity
between the deceased and the accused-appellants and their meeting in the fiesta fair was accidental.
Moreover, their intention was only to make fun of the victim. Hence, their criminal responsibility and
liability should be based on their individual acts and not collective.
W/N accused Pugay was negligent / lacked foresight in pouring the gasoline on the victim [YES]
● Pugay should have known from the smell that the can contained gasoline. Clearly, he failed to
exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid the undesirable consequences of his actions and the
actions that may be committed by his companions.
● The Court held that Pugay is only guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
1
CRIM 1 – AGUILAR
Elements of Criminal Liability – Constructive Intent – Culpa – Negligence
Digest by JCI Carmen
W/N accused Samson committed murder [NO]
● There is adequate evidence showing that his act was merely a part of their fun-making that evening.
However, Samson also knew that the liquid poured was gasoline or he would not have set him on fire
otherwise. The Court ruled that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
● The Court held that Samson is only guilty of homicide.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RULING:
Judgment appealed from [affirmed, with costs against appellants, with the following modifications:]
 Pugay – sentence lowered to HOMICIDE THROUGH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE – 4 months of
arresto mayor as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum
 Samson – sentence lowered to HOMICIDE – 8 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years of
reclusion temporal as maximum
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
NOTES
DOCTRINE:
Revised Penal Code
Article 3: Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. (emphasis supplied)
Article 365: Imprudence and negligence. - Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act
which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in
its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave
felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have
constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
xxx
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage
impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
xxx
(emphasis supplied)
2