Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3
 
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 reviethe 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 follos) At about *)++ in the afternoon of ul# &&, &-*$, hile co"plainant 'erapion Nacionales asopening the die of his ricefield situated in Antandan, Miagao, Iloilo, to drain the ater thereinand prepare the ground for planting the ne/t da#, he heard a shout fro" afar telling hi" not toopen the die, Nacionales continued opening the die, and the sa"e voice shouted again,01on2t #ou dare open the die.0 3hen he looed up, he sa Isidoro Mondragon co"ingtoards hi". Nacionales infor"ed appellant that he as opening the die because he ouldplant the ne/t "orning. 3ithout "uch ado, Mondragon tried to hit the co"plainant hododged the blo. Thereupon, appellant dre his bolo and struc co"plainant on differentparts of his bod#. Co"plainant baced out, unsheathed his on bolo, and haced appellanton the head and forear" and beteen the "iddle and ring fingers in order to defend hi"self.The appellant retreated, and the co"plainant did not pursue hi" but ent ho"e instead. Thefolloing da#, the co"plainant as treated b# 1r. Alfredo a"andre, Municipal 4ealth 5fficer of Miagao, Iloilo, for the folloing lesions 6E/hibit A7)0&. Incised ound about %8&9% inches long and &9: inches deep cutting diagonall# across theangle of the left ;a.0%. Incised ound &8&9% inches long and cutting the bone underneath 6:9$ 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 loer 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 toill "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. 4oever, 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#shon. 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 anser "ade b# the petitioner hile testif#ing in his on behalf. Thus in the decision appealed fro", it stated)/ / / Appellant2s intention to ill "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 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 hichould drain the ater aa# fro" the land of the petitioner, and because of this =uarrel a fightbeteen the" too place. The fight started ith the petitioner first giving first blos 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 shon a defiant attitude, consideringthat the offended part# hi"self had a bolo, as in fact the offended part# had also dran hisbolo and hit the petitioner ith it, 3e consider that under the circu"stances surrounding thefight beteen 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 ansered 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.C5RT)3itness "a# anser.3ITNE'')>es, sir, because I need the ater./ / / / / / / / /The foregoing state"ent or anser 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 anser of the petitioner is not a categorical state"ent of anintention on his part to ill the offended part#. The ter" 0ill 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 ansered 0#es0, hen he as ased 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 anser 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 =uestionas "isleading. At "ost, that anser 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 dran 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 blos the ounds inflicted on the offended part# ere of slightnature, indicating no ho"icidal urge on the part of the petitioner the petitioner retreated andent aa# 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.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505