7. Abella v.

People (Kara) FACTS:

October 7, 2013 | Reyes, J. | Article 6 1. The petitioner, who at times worked as a farmer, baker and trisicad
driver, was charged with frustrated homicide which reads:
PETITIONER: FE ABELLA y PERPETUA a. On or about September 6, 1998, at 11:00 o’clock in the
RESPONDENT: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES evening, more or less, at Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de
Oro City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any
SUMMARY: The petitioner was charged with frustrated homicide. In the
justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
information, it was alleged that he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and
and feloniously and with intent to kill, attack, assault,
with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted, harmed and hacked one, BENIGNO
harm and hack one, BENIGNO ABELLA y PERPETUA,
ABELLA y PERPETUA, with the use of a scythe, hitting the latter’s neck,
with the use of a scythe, hitting the latter’s neck, thereby
thereby inflicting the injury. The petitioner argued that there was no intent to
inflicting the injury
kill because after the single hacking blow was delivered, he ran after
Alejandro and Dionisio leaving Benigno behind. He also argued that Benigno
could not have been unaware of the danger facing him, but he knew that the 2. The Prosecution evidence established that on September 6, 1998,
petitioner had no intent to hurt him. Benigno thus approached the petitioner, at around 11:00 p.m., Benigno was watching television in his
but in the process, the former was accidentally hit with the latter’s scythe. house. A certain Roger Laranjo arrived and asked Benigno to
The petitioner also cites Pentecostes, Jr. v. People 38 where this Court found pacify the petitioner, who was stirring trouble in a nearby store.
the downgrading of a conviction from attempted murder to physical injuries Benigno and Amelita found the petitioner fighting with Alejandro
as proper considering that homicidal intent was absent when the accused shot and a certain Dionisio Ybañes (Dionisio). Benigno was able to
the victim once and did not hit a vital part of the latter’s body. WON there convince the petitioner to go home. Benigno and Amelita followed
was intent to kill? YES. Court concludes and thus agrees with the CA that the suit and along the way, they dropped by the houses of Alejandro
use of a scythe against Benigno’s neck was determinative of the petitioner’s and Dionisio to apologize for the petitioner’s conduct.
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 3. Benigno and Amelita were in Alejandro’s house when the
of a scythe could be enough to decapitate a person and leave him dead. While petitioner arrived bringing with him two scythes, one in each of his
no complications actually developed from the gaping wounds in Benigno’s hands. Benigno instructed Alejandro and Dionisio to run away and
neck and left hand, it perplexes logic to conclude that the injuries he the latter two complied. The petitioner wanted to enter Alejandro’s
sustained were potentially not fatal considering the period of his confinement house, but Benigno blocked his way and asked him not to proceed.
in the hospital. A mere grazing injury would have necessitated a lesser degree The petitioner then pointed the scythe, which he held in his left
of medical attention. hand, in the direction of Benigno’s stomach, while the scythe in
the right hand was used to hack the latter’s neck once. 14 Benigno
fell to the ground and was immediately taken to the
DOCTRINE: In cases of frustrated homicide, the main element is the hospital15 while the petitioner ran to chase Alejandro. 16 Benigno
accused’s intent to take his victim’s life. The prosecution has to prove this incurred an expense of more than ₱10,000.00 for hospitalization,
clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal but lost the receipts of his bills. 17 He further claimed that after the
intent. And the intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the hacking incident, he could no longer move his left hand and was
means the offender used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he thus deprived of his capacity to earn a living as a carpenter.
inflicted on his victim.. 4. The petitioner relied on denial and alibi as defenses. He claimed
that from September 2, 1998 to October 2002, he and his family
 resided in Buenavista, Agusan del Norte. Sitio Puli, Canitoan, intent was absent when the accused shot the victim once and did
Cagayan de Oro City, where the hacking incident occurred, is not hit a vital part of the latter’s body.
about four (4) hours drive away. Fernando testified that on
September 6, 1998, he saw the petitioner gathering woods to make
a hut.25 Later in the evening, at around 5:00 p.m., Urbano spotted ISSUE:
the petitioner drinking tuba in the store of Clarita Perpetua. 1. WON there was intent to kill? Yes.
5. RTC : Guilty of frustrated homicide RATIO:
6. The petitioner argued that the hacking was merely accidental
especially since he had no motive whatsoever which could have
impelled him to hurt Benigno, and that the infliction of merely one 1. In cases of frustrated homicide, the main element is the accused’s
wound negates intent to kill. intent to take his victim’s life. The prosecution has to prove this
7. CA: affirmed RTC’s conviction but modified the sentence. clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding
a. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; homicidal intent. And the intent to kill is often inferred from,
(b) the nature or number of weapons used in the among other things, the means the offender used and the nature,
commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim.46
wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime
was committed; and (e) the words uttered by the offender
at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim. 2. The petitioner now wants to impress upon this Court that he had no
b. Here, the intent to kill was sufficiently proven by the motive to attack, much less kill Benigno. The petitioner likewise
Prosecution. The petitioner attacked Benigno with deadly invokes the doctrine in Pentecostes, Jr.47 to argue that homicidal
weapons, two scythes. The petitioner’s blow was directed intent is absent in a case where the accused shot the victim only
to the neck of Benigno. The attack on the unarmed and once when there was an opportunity to do otherwise. The
unsuspecting Benigno was swift and sudden. The latter petitioner belabors his claim that had he intended to kill Benigno,
had no means, and no time, to defend himself. he could have repeatedly hacked him to ensure the latter’s death,
8. The petitioner points out that after the single hacking blow was and not leave right after the blow to chase Alejandro instead.
delivered, he ran after Alejandro and Dionisio leaving Benigno
behind. Had there been an intent to kill on his part, the petitioner 3. The analogy is flawed.
could have inflicted more wounds since at that time, he had two
scythes in his hands. Further, the CA erred in finding that the 4. In Pentecostes, Jr., the victim was shot only once in the arm, a non
hacking blow was sudden and unexpected, providing Benigno with vital part of the body. The attending physician certified that the
no opportunity to defend himself. Benigno saw the petitioner injury would require medical attendance for ten days, but the
arriving with weapons on hand. Benigno could not have been victim was in fact promptly discharged from the hospital the
unaware of the danger facing him, but he knew that the petitioner following day.
had no intent to hurt him. Benigno thus approached the petitioner,
but in the process, the former was accidentally hit with the latter’s
scythe. 5. In Benigno’s case, he sustained an 11-centimeter long hacking
wound in the neck and a 4-cm long incised wound in his left hand
9. The petitioner also cites Pentecostes, Jr. v. People 38 where this
caused by the unsterile scythe used by the petitioner. Dr. Ardiente
Court found the downgrading of a conviction from attempted
testified that "it is possible to have complications resulting from
murder to physical injuries as proper considering that homicidal
these injuries because the wounds were extensive and they were
 big and they were open wounds, so there is a possibility of
infections resulting from these kinds of wounds, and the
instrument used was not a sterile instrument contaminated with
other things."48 No complications developed from Benigno’s
wounds which could have caused his death, but he was confined in
the hospital for a period of 17 days from September 6, 1998 to
September 23, 1998.

6. From the foregoing, this 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.

7. 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