Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1918 > September 1918 Decisions > G.R. No. 13818 September 26, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO MENDOZA

038 Phil 691:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 13818. September 26, 1918. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTORIANO MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

Guillerrno M. Katigbak, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Paredes, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE; INTENTION TO KILL. — In order that the crime may be classified as one of frustrated homicide, it would be necessary to admit that the defendant intended to kill the offended party. After a careful examination of the circumstances of the crime, Held: That the defendant had such an intention.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOUNDED ON INTENTION. — When criminal liability is made to consist in the intention to perform an act which was not realized, the facts from which it is claimed that intention sprang must be such as to exclude all contrary supposition. When this intention is not necessarily disclosed by the acts performed by the defendant, greater importance should not be given to such acts than that which they in themselves import, nor should the defendant’s liability be extended beyond that which is actually involved in the material results of his acts. Intention may only be deduced from the external acts performed by the agent, and when these acts have naturally given a definite result, the courts can not, without clear and conclusive proof, hold that some other result was intended.


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, J. :


The defendant was sentenced, by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, for the crime of frustrated homicide, to the penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, with the corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify the offended party, Gasper W. Creason, in the sum of P37, and to pay the costs of the case. From this judgment he appealed.

The defendant was at outs with Gasper W. Creason because the latter had not wished to testify as a witness in a case in which the defendant’s daughter was interested. At about 8.30 o’clock in the evening of December 23, 1917, the defendant entered the house where Creason was living, in the municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac, and insulted him by words. Creason, who was sick, arose from his bed on hearing the defendant’s insults and just at that moment the latter assaulted him with a pocket knife, therewith causing him a wound in the abdomen. Creason then struggled with the defendant, to snatch the weapon from him, and at the same time called his father-in-law to come to help him. Thereupon the defendant ran away, leaving the weapon. As a result of the wound he received, Creason was prevented for a period of 22 days from engaging in his customary labors, spent P15 in effecting his cure, and during this time failed to earn one peso a day.

The Attorney-General is of the opinion that the facts proven do not constitute the crime of frustrated homicide, but only that of lesiones menos graves. We agree with that opinion. In order that the crime may be classified as one of frustrated homicide, it would be necessary to admit that the defendant intended to kill the offended party. The circumstances of the case, however, do not show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had such an intention. Rather is the contrary indicated by his running away and his leaving the weapon during the struggle he maintained with the offended party. If his purpose had been to kill, the moment he gave up the struggle was not yet the most opportune, if the circumstances justified his acts. The offended party was only wounded, and, it appears, not seriously wounded, while he was struggling with his assailant. The defendant continued in the possession of the weapon and was in the same favorable conditions for the realization of his purpose, as in the beginning of the assault. The offended party’s father-in-law had not yet taken a hand in the former’s defense. And yet, notwithstanding, the defendant fled and left his weapon behind. It cannot be said that he did so because it was impossible for him to realize his purpose When criminal liability is made to consist in the intention to perform an act which was not realized, the facts from which it is claimed that intention sprang must be such as to exclude all contrary supposition. When this intention is not necessarily disclosed by the acts performed by the defendant, greater importance should not be given to such acts than that which they in themselves import, nor should the defendant’s liability be extended beyond that which is actually involved in the material results of his act. Nothing is more difficult to discover than intention, as being a mental act; we are only able to deduce it from the external acts performed by the agent, and when these acts have naturally given a definite result, courts should not, without clear and conclusive proof, hold that some other results was intended.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is held that the defendant is guilty of the crime of lesiones, as defined in article 418 of the Penal Code, and, taking into account that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party and at nighttime, the defendant is sentenced to 6 months of arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended party in the. sum of P37, or, in case of insolvency, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs of this action. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Street, Malcolm and Fisher, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1918 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 12762 September 6, 1918 - FELIX RAMENTO v. CIRIACO SABLAYA, ET AL.

    038 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 14576 September 6, 1918 - IN RE: VICENTE SOTTO

    038 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 12605 September 7, 1918 - UY SOO LIM v. BENITO TAN UNCHUAN

    038 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 12208 September 9, 1918 - PEDRO SANTOS v. JULIAN SANTIAGO

    038 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 12209 September 9, 1918 - ISIDRA DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. MARIANO LIM

    038 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 13228 September 13, 1918 - WILLIAM OLLENDORFF v. IRA ABRAHAMSON

    038 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 13985 September 16, 1918 - VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    038 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 13203 September 18, 1918 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. (LTD.) v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    038 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 13392 September 18, 1918 - PAZ NATIVIDAD v. BERNARDO MARQUEZ

    038 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 12264 September 23, 1918 - DOMINGO BANATAO v. SALVADOR DABBAY, ET AL.

    038 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 13153 September 23, 1918 - SANTOS CARTAJENA v. ISAIAS LIJAUCO, ET AL.

    038 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 13799 September 23, 1918 - CATALINO BAUTISTA v. PAULINO FAJARDO

    038 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 14289 September 23, 1918 - GREGORIO LITUAÑA, ET AL. v. SEVERINO OLIVEROS

    038 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 14395 September 23, 1918 - MARIANO CABUSAO v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

    038 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11897 September 24, 1918 - J. F. RAMIREZ v. THE ORIENTALIST CO., ET AL.

    038 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 13151 September 24, 1918 - E. A. ENAGE v. La Razon Social "VDA. E HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO", ET AL.

    038 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 13990 September 24, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    038 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 13288 September 25, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN GINER CRUZ.

    038 Phil 677

  • G.R. Nos. 13841 & 14133 September 25, 1918 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN ABRION ET AL.

    038 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 13229 September 26, 1918 - JOSE FERNANDEZ v. THOMPSON & CO., ET AL.

    038 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 13818 September 26, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO MENDOZA

    038 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 13498 September 30, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CASTOR, ET AL.

    038 Phil 693