People v. Joven
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 17, 1915, the provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed a complaint charging Angel Joven with attempted homicide for assaulting Edilberto Joven with a pocket-knife on June 13, 1915, inflicting several wounds. The prosecution alleged that the assault was done with the intent to kill, and the crime was not consummated due to the timely intervention of Fortunato Datu. Procedural History: The defendant pleaded not guilty. The Court of First Instance of Pampanga found Angel Joven guilty as principal of attempted homicide, sentencing him to two years, four months, and one day of presidio correccional, to indemnify Edilberto Joven in the sum of P500, and to pay costs. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The appellant assailed the judgment, arguing that the crime should be classified as lesiones menos graves (less serious physical injuries) and that the indemnity for damages was not proven and was fixed solely by the lower court's discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was attempted homicide or lesiones menos graves. Whether the indemnity for damages was properly awarded and fixed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in finding the defendant guilty of attempted homicide, but modified the penalty to prision correccional in its medium degree. The Court also affirmed the award of indemnity for damages, finding the amount of P500 to be reasonable and just.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of the crime: The Court held that the crime committed was attempted homicide. The defendant's manifest intention to kill was shown by his acts and confirmed by his words, "Until I can kill you." He used a weapon adequate to cause death, inflicting wounds on the neck and arm. The intervention of Fortunato Datu prevented the consummation of the crime. The Court emphasized that the defendant commenced the execution of the crime directly by exterior acts, but did not perform all acts of execution due to a cause not his own voluntary desistance. The nature and seriousness of the wounds, particularly the one on the neck which could have been fatal had it reached the main arteries or been deeper, further supported the intent to kill. The wound on the arm was likely sustained by the victim while shielding his neck, indicating the primary target was the neck. The use of an automatic pocket-knife with a five-inch blade was also considered as a weapon capable of causing death. On the indemnity for damages: The Court found that while no specific receipts for medical expenses were presented, the record itself disclosed the nature, seriousness, and consequences of the wounds. The testimony of the aggrieved party and Dr. Punu established that the victim suffered consequential injury, required medical treatment, hospitalization, and two operations, resulting in the atrophy and partial incapacitation of his left arm. Pursuant to Article 122 of the Penal Code, courts have the duty to regulate the amount of damages. The lower court, in fixing the indemnity at P500, took into account the nature and importance of the wounds and their consequences, as well as the testimony presented, and this amount was deemed reasonable and just.
Main Doctrine
The crime of attempted homicide is committed when the offender commences the execution of the crime of homicide directly by exterior acts, though he does not perform all the acts of execution which were to produce the crime, owing to a cause or accident not his own voluntary desistance, such as the intervention of a third party. The manifest intention of the agent, as shown by his acts and confirmed by his words, and for the realization of which, means were employed adequate to obtain the result sought by him, is crucial for classification.