People v. Abella
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 6, 1998, at around 11:00 p.m., Benigno Abella was in his house when asked to pacify his brother, Fe Abella (petitioner), who was causing trouble. Benigno and his wife found petitioner fighting with others. Benigno convinced petitioner to go home. While Benigno and his wife were apologizing to others, petitioner arrived with two scythes. Petitioner pointed one scythe at Benigno's stomach and used the other to hack Benigno's neck once. Benigno fell and was taken to the hospital. Petitioner fled and chased other individuals. Procedural History: Petitioner was charged with frustrated homicide. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented testimonies of Benigno, his wife, and the attending surgeon. The defense presented petitioner and two witnesses, relying on denial and alibi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner of frustrated homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty, actual damages, and consequential damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, deleted actual and consequential damages, and awarded moral and temperate damages. The Petition: Petitioner sought review, arguing that the courts erred in finding intent to kill, claiming the hacking was accidental and that inflicting only one wound and then chasing others negated intent. He also argued that the wounds were not fatal and cited Pentecostes, Jr. v. People.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for frustrated homicide and whether the evidence sufficiently proved the petitioner's intent to kill. Whether the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted, coupled with the petitioner's subsequent actions, negate the intent to kill. Whether the award of damages by the Court of Appeals was proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed with modifications regarding the award of damages. Petitioner is ordered to pay moral damages and temperate damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for frustrated homicide and whether the evidence sufficiently proved the petitioner's intent to kill: The Supreme Court held that the petition raises factual issues beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition, which is generally limited to questions of law. However, even if the Court were to exceptionally review the facts, the petition would still be denied. To prove frustrated homicide, the prosecution must establish the accused's intent to kill. This intent can be inferred from the means used, the nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted. In this case, the use of a scythe against the victim's neck, a potentially fatal blow, strongly indicated homicidal intent. The victim sustained an 11-centimeter hacking wound on the neck and a 4-centimeter incised wound on the hand. The attending surgeon testified that complications like infection were possible due to the unsterile weapon and the nature of the wounds, and the victim was hospitalized for 17 days, indicating the seriousness of the injuries. The Court agreed with the CA that the act of hacking the neck with a scythe was determinative of the petitioner's homicidal intent. On the issue of whether the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted, coupled with the petitioner's subsequent actions, negate the intent to kill: The Court found the petitioner's reliance on Pentecostes, Jr. v. People to be flawed. In Pentecostes, Jr., the victim was shot once in the arm, a non-vital part, and discharged quickly from the hospital. Here, the victim sustained a severe neck wound and a hand wound, requiring significant hospitalization. The petitioner's argument that he did not inflict further wounds because he chased other individuals was also dismissed. The Court reasoned that the potentially fatal blow had already been delivered, and the victim's survival was due to timely medical intervention, a cause independent of the petitioner's will, not due to any desistance on his part. Therefore, the subsequent actions did not negate the initial intent to kill. On the issue of whether the award of damages by the Court of Appeals was proper: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's deletion of consequential damages due to lack of proof. However, it modified the award of temperate damages, increasing it from the CA's ₱10,000.00 to ₱25,000.00, recognizing that while pecuniary loss was incurred (hospitalization, treatment), the exact amount could not be proven with certainty. The Court also affirmed the award of moral damages, stating that ordinary human experience dictates that such wounds would cause physical suffering, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock. The amount of moral damages was also adjusted to ₱25,000.00. All monetary awards were made subject to legal interest.
Main Doctrine
In frustrated homicide, the prosecution must prove the accused's intent to kill clearly and convincingly. This intent is often inferred from the means used, and the nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted. The accused's pursuit of another individual after inflicting a potentially fatal blow does not negate intent to kill if the victim's survival was due to timely medical intervention, a cause independent of the offender's will.