Jurisprudence Criminal Law


There was no animosity between the deceased and Pugay or Samson.

Their meeting at the scene of the incident was accidental. It is also clear that the accused and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased.

Hence, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against the deceased is individual and not collective, each of them is liable only for the act committed by him.

Pugay is liable for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence, while Samson is liable for Homicide.

Pugay failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from his act.

Samson knew very well that the liquid poured on the body of the deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have committed the act of setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it can be conceded that as of their fun-making he merely intended to set the deceased’s clothes on fire.

Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides, inter alia, that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

(PEOPLE vs. PUGAY, No. L-74324. November 17, 1988)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.