Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
ManilaEN BANC
G.R. No. L-17666 June 30, 1966ISIDORO MONDRAGON,
petitioner, vs.
THE PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
Jose Gaton for petitioner.Assistant Solicitor General E. Umali and Solicitor N. P. Eduardo for respondent.
!ALDI"AR,
J.:
The petitioner, Isidoro Mondragon, as prosecuted in the Court of !irst Instance of Iloilo of the cri"e of frustrated ho"icide. After trial the Court of !irst Instance of Iloilo found hi" guilt#of the cri"e of atte"pted ho"icide and sentenced hi" to an indeter"inate prison ter" of fro" $ "onths and %& da#s of
arresto mayor
to % #ears, $ "onths and & da# of
prisioncorreccional
, ith the accessor# penalties of the la and the costs. Mondragon appealed tothe Court of Appeals, and the latter court affir"ed the decision of the Court of !irst Instance of Iloilo in all its parts, ith costs. This case is no before us on a petition for
certiorari
to reviethe decision of the Court of Appeals. No brief for the respondent. The People of thePhilippines, as filed b# the 'olicitor (eneral.The pertinent portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals, hich e"bod# the findings of fact and conclusion of said court, is as follos) At about *)++ in the afternoon of ul# &&, &-*$, hile co"plainant 'erapion Nacionales asopening the die of his ricefield situated in Antandan, Miagao, Iloilo, to drain the ater thereinand prepare the ground for planting the ne/t da#, he heard a shout fro" afar telling hi" not toopen the die, Nacionales continued opening the die, and the sa"e voice shouted again,01on2t #ou dare open the die.0 3hen he looed up, he sa Isidoro Mondragon co"ingtoards hi". Nacionales infor"ed appellant that he as opening the die because he ouldplant the ne/t "orning. 3ithout "uch ado, Mondragon tried to hit the co"plainant hododged the blo. Thereupon, appellant dre his bolo and struc co"plainant on differentparts of his bod#. Co"plainant baced out, unsheathed his on bolo, and haced appellanton the head and forear" and beteen the "iddle and ring fingers in order to defend hi"self.The appellant retreated, and the co"plainant did not pursue hi" but ent ho"e instead. Thefolloing da#, the co"plainant as treated b# 1r. Alfredo a"andre, Municipal 4ealth 5fficer of Miagao, Iloilo, for the folloing lesions 6E/hibit A7)0&. Incised ound about %8&9% inches long and &9: inches deep cutting diagonall# across theangle of the left ;a.0%. Incised ound &8&9% inches long and cutting the bone underneath 6:9$ centi"eters deep7belo the right e#e.0:. Incised ound about & inch long at the lunar side of the left rist.0$. Incised ound about :8&9% inches long and &9% inch deep at the left side of the loer partof the left ar".0*. Incised ound about &9% inch long at the bac of the left inde/, "iddle and ring fingers.0<. Incised ound about & inch long of the pal"ar side of the left thu"b.0Barring co"plication the above lesions "a# heal fro" %+ to %* da#s.0/ / / / / / / / / Also upon the evidence, the offense co""itted is atte"pted ho"icide. Appellant2s intention toill "a# be inferred fro" his ad"ission "ade in court that he ould do ever#thing he could to
stop Nacionales fro" digging the canal because he needed the ater. 4oever, it asestablished that the in;uries received b# the co"plainant ere not necessaril# fatal as tocause the death of said co"plainant.The issue raised b# the petitioner in the present appeal is that the Court of Appeals erred infinding hi" guilt# of the cri"e of atte"pted ho"icide and not of the cri"e of less seriousph#sical in;uries. It is the contention of the petitioner that the facts as found b# the Court of Appeals do not sho that the petitioner had the intention to ill the offendedpart#.
1äwphï1.!t
There is "erit in the contention of the petitioner. 3e have carefull# e/a"ined the record, and3e find that the intention of the petitioner to ill the offended part# has not been conclusivel#shon. The finding of the Court of Appeals that the petitioner had the intention to ill theoffended part# is si"pl# the result of an inference fro" an anser "ade b# the petitioner hile testif#ing in his on behalf. Thus in the decision appealed fro", it stated)/ / / Appellant2s intention to ill "a# be inferred fro" his ad"ission "ade in Court that heould do ever#thing he could to stop Nacionales fro" digging the canal because he neededthe ater.The facts as found b# the Court of Appeals, in our opinion, do not establish the intent to ill onthe part of the petitioner. Rather, 3e gather that hat happened as that the petitioner andthe offended part# had a =uarrel over the "atter regarding the opening of the canal hichould drain the ater aa# fro" the land of the petitioner, and because of this =uarrel a fightbeteen the" too place. The fight started ith the petitioner first giving first blos to theoffended part# and later he dre his bolo and inflicted on the offended part# the in;uries hichthe Court of Appeals found to be not necessaril# fatal and hich ere certified b# agovern"ent "edical officer that the# ould heal in less than :+ da#s. The facts as found b#the Court of Appeals also sho that the offended part# dre his bolo and hit the petitioner ondifferent parts of his bod#, and that the petitioner retreated and did not insist on hitting theoffended part# ith his bolo. It "a# be assu"ed that the petitioner dre his bolo and hit theoffended part# ith it onl# hen the offended part# had shon a defiant attitude, consideringthat the offended part# hi"self had a bolo, as in fact the offended part# had also dran hisbolo and hit the petitioner ith it, 3e consider that under the circu"stances surrounding thefight beteen the petitioner and the offended part# the intention of the petitioner to ill theoffended part# as not "anifest.The Court of Appeals concluded that the petitioner had the intention to ill the offended part#hen the petitioner ansered in the affir"ative the =uestion as to hether he ould doever#thing that he could do to stop the offended part# fro" digging the canal because heneeded the ater. 3e reproduce here the transcript of the pertinent testi"on#)/ / / / / / / / / ATT>. M5RA1A)? @ In other ords #ou ant to tell us that #ou ill do ever#thing #ou could to stopNacionales digging the canal, because #ou need ater ATT>. CANT5)I ob;ect to the =uestion. It is "isleading.C5RT)3itness "a# anser.3ITNE'')>es, sir, because I need the ater./ / / / / / / / /The foregoing state"ent or anser as "ade b# the petitioner during the trial hich too
place on anuar# &$, &-*-. The incident in =uestion too place on ul# &&, &-*$. Thestate"ent "ade b# the petitioner al"ost five #ears after the occurrence of the incident shouldnot, in our opinion, be considered as an accurate indication of hat he had in his "ind at theti"e of the incident. Besides, that anser of the petitioner is not a categorical state"ent of anintention on his part to ill the offended part#. The ter" 0ill do ever#thing0 has a broad"eaning and it should be construed in a "anner as to give the petitioner the benefit of thedoubt as to hat he reall# "eant to do. At least it cannot be said that hen the petitioner ansered 0#es0, hen he as ased hether he ould do ever#thing to stop Nacionales fro"digging the canal, the onl# a# he had in "ind to stop Nacionales as to ill hi". It "ust benoted that this anser of the petitioner as "ade to a =ualif#ing =uestion propounded to hi"b# the private prosecutor over the ob;ection of his counsel on the ground that the =uestionas "isleading. At "ost, that anser of the petitioner "a# onl# be considered as ane/pression of opinion of hat he ould do under a given circu"stance.The intent to ill being an essential ele"ent of the offense of frustrated or atte"ptedho"icide, said ele"ent "ust be proved b# clear and convincing evidence. That ele"ent "ustbe proved ith the sa"e degree of certaint# as is re=uired of the other ele"ents of the cri"e.The inference of intent to ill should not be dran in the absence of circu"stances sufficientto prove such intent be#ond reasonable doubt 6People vs. illanueva, *& Phil. $DD7.
&
3e hold that the facts brought out in the decision of the Court of Appeals in the present casedo not ;ustif# a finding that the petitioner had the intention to ill the offended part#. 5n thecontrar#, there are facts brought out b# the decision appealed fro" hich indicates that thepetitioner had no intention to ill, na"el#) the petitioner started the assault on the offendedpart# b# ;ust giving hi" fist blos the ounds inflicted on the offended part# ere of slightnature, indicating no ho"icidal urge on the part of the petitioner the petitioner retreated andent aa# hen the offended part# started hitting hi" ith a bolo, thereb# indicating that if the petitioner had intended to ill the offended part# he ould have held his ground and epton hitting the offended part# ith his bolo to ill hi".The ele"ent of intent to ill not having been dul# established, and considering that the in;uriessuffered b# the offended part# ere not necessaril# fatal and could be healed in less than :+da#s, 3e hold that the offense that as co""itted b# the petitioner is onl# that of less seriousph#sical in;uries.The offense of less serious ph#sical in;uries, as defined in Article %<* of the Revised PenalCode, is punishable b#
arresto mayor
or i"prison"ent of fro" & "onth and & da# to <"onths. The facts as found b# the Court of Appeals do not sho an# aggravating or "itigatingcircu"stance that "a# be considered in the i"position of the penalt# on the petitioner. 3e,therefore, sentence the petitioner to suffer the penalt# of three 6:7 "onths and fifteen 6&*7da#s of
arresto mayor
.In vie of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed fro" should be, as it ishereb#, "odified in the sense that the petitioner is declared guilt# of the offense of lessserious ph#sical in;uries and he is sentenced to suffer the penalt# of three 6:7 "onths andfifteen 6&*7 da#s of
arresto mayor
, ith costs.
"oncepcion# ".J.# $eyes# J.%.&.# 'i(on# $e)ala# %en)(on and Sanche(# JJ.# concur.%arreraand *a+alintal# JJ.# too+ no part.
oo#no#e$
&
'ee also) .'. vs. Re#es and Palanca, D+ Phil. **& .'. vs. MendoFa, :D Phil. <-& Peoplevs. Montes. *: Phil. :%: People vs. Pacusbas and Pacusbas, <$ Phil. <&$ and People vs.Penesa D& Phil. :-D.
Satisfaites votre curiosité
Tout ce que vous voulez lire.
À tout moment. Partout. Sur n'importe quel appareil.
Aucun engagement. Annulez à tout moment.