Abella V People CD (Attempted Homecide)

TITLE OF THE CASE:
G.R. No. 198400 October 7, 2013

FE ABELLA y PERPETUA, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
Ponente: Justice Reyes
NATURE OF THE CASE:
In cases of frustrated homicide, the main element is the accused’s intent to take his
victim’s life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every
possible doubt regarding homicidal intent. And the intent to kill is often inferred from,
among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number
of wounds he inflicted on his victim.
FACTS:
On September 6, 1998, at around 11:00 p.m., Benigno was watching television in his
house.
A certain Roger Laranjo arrived and asked Benigno to pacify the petitioner, who
was stirring trouble in a nearby store. Benigno and Amelita found the petitioner
fighting with Alejandro and a certain Dionisio Ybañes (Dionisio).
Benigno was able to convince the petitioner to go home. Benigno and Amelita followed
suit and along the way, they dropped by the houses of Alejandro and Dionisio to apologize
for the petitioner’s conduct. Benigno and Amelita were in Alejandro’s house when the
petitioner arrived bringing with him two scythes, one in each of his hands.
Benigno instructed Alejandro and Dionisio to run away and the latter two complied. The
petitioner wanted to enter Alejandro’s house, but Benigno blocked his way and asked
him not to proceed.
The petitioner then pointed the scythe, which he held in his left hand, in the direction of
Benigno’s stomach, while the scythe in the right hand was used to hack the latter’s neck
once.
Benigno fell to the ground and was immediately taken to the hospital while the petitioner
ran to chase Alejandro. Benigno incurred an expense of more than ₱10,000.00 for
hospitalization, but lost the receipts of his bills. He further claimed that after the hacking
incident, he could no longer move his left hand and was thus deprived of his capacity to
earn a living as a carpenter.
Dr. Ardiente testified that Benigno sustained: (a) a "hacking wound left lateral aspect
neck 11 cm"; and (b) an "incised wound left hand dorsal aspect 4 cm". Benigno was
initially confined in the hospital on September 6, 1998 and was discharged on September
23, 1998. From Dr. Ardiente’s recollection, since the scythe used in the hacking was not
sterile, complications and infections could have developed from the big and open wounds
sustained by Benigno, but fortunately did not.
RTC - convicted the petitioner of frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
CA – Affirmed the decision of RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in affirming the RTC’s conviction of the petitioner of the crime
of frustrated homicide.
RULING: NO, the CA did not err.

Case Digest by:
Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1
The Court through Justice Reyes declared that in cases of frustrated homicide, the main
element is the accused’s intent to take his victim’s life. The prosecution has to prove this
clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal intent. And
the intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used
and the nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim.
In the case at bar, the Court concludes and thus agrees with the CA that the use of a
scythe against Benigno’s neck was determinative of the petitioner’s homicidal intent
when the hacking blow was delivered. It does not require imagination to figure out that
a single hacking blow in the neck with the use of a scythe could be enough to decapitate
a person and leave him dead. While no complications actually developed from the gaping
wounds in Benigno’s neck and left hand, it perplexes logic to conclude that the injuries
he sustained were potentially not fatal considering the period of his confinement in the
hospital. A mere grazing injury would have necessitated a lesser degree of medical
attention.
This Court likewise finds wanting in merit the petitioner’s claim that an intent to kill is
negated by the fact that he pursued Alejandro instead and refrained from further hacking
Benigno. What could have been a fatal blow was already delivered and there was no
more desistance to speak of. Benigno did not die from the hacking incident by reason of
a timely medical intervention provided to him, which is a cause independent of the
petitioner’s will.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution, dated October
26, 2010 and August 11 2011, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
00336-MIN are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
The petitioner, Fe Abella y Perpetua is ORDERED TO PAY the offended party moral
damages in the amount of ₱25,000.00 and temperate damages in the amount of
₱25,000.00. Further, the monetary awards for damages shall be subject to interest at the
legal rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Case Digest by:

Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1

Abella V People CD (Attempted Homecide)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abella V People CD (Attempted Homecide)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE OF THE CASE:

G.R. No. 198400 October 7, 2013

Ponente: Justice Reyes

NATURE OF THE CASE:

RTC - convicted the petitioner of frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

CA – Affirmed the decision of RTC.

RULING: NO, the CA did not err.

Case Digest by:

You might also like