Title
People vs. Ursua
Case
G.R. No. 40198
Decision Date
Aug 1, 1934
Municipal president Ursua accidentally shot Quiro with an unloaded revolver, leading to homicide charges. Trial court failed to address civil liability; Supreme Court remanded for determination, affirming jurisdiction over civil claims despite criminal appeal.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 40198)

Facts:

The People of the Philippine Islands v. Benedicto Ursua, G.R. No. 40198. August 01, 1934, the Supreme Court En Banc, Avanceña, C.J., writing for the Court.

An information for homicide through reckless imprudence was filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against Benedicto Ursua (defendant/appellant). During trial the private prosecution intervened. The trial court found that on November 17, 1932, in Libmanan, Camarines Sur, the accused — acting as municipal president — commanded policeman Alejro Quiro to procure the municipal president's revolver; upon delivery the accused noticed the revolver was unloaded and had the chief of police load it with four cartridges and return it with the cylinder and trigger seemingly secure. Soon after the accused took the revolver a discharge occurred, fatally wounding Quiro in the abdomen.

The trial court convicted Ursua of homicide through reckless imprudence and sentenced him to one year and one day of prision correccional but omitted any adjudication of civil liability in favor of the deceased's heirs. The judgment was rendered July 8, 1933; Ursua was notified July 13 and on that day filed a notice of appeal. On July 18 the private prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration asserting the court failed to decide the accused's civil liability; the trial court denied that motion, reasoning that Ursua's appeal had divested it of jurisdiction. The private prosecution excepted and appealed that denial.

Subsequently the Supreme Court declared Ursua's appeal abandoned by resolution dated November 28, 1933, leaving only the private prosecution's appeal concerning civil liability. The Supreme Court th...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did the trial court lose jurisdiction to pass upon the private prosecution’s motion for reconsideration filed within fifteen days after judgment because the accused had already filed an appeal?
  • Was it error for the trial court to omit a judgment on the accused’s civil liability aris...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.