Rivera vs. People

RIVERA vs.
PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 166326
January 25, 2006; Callejo, Sr., J.
Facts:
As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store to buy food, accused Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being jobless and
dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated exchange of words ensued. In the evening of
the following day, when Ruben and his three-year-old daughter went to the store to buy food, Edgardo, together with his brother
Esmeraldo Rivera and Ismael Rivera, emerged from their house and ganged up on him.
Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow
block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house only when the policemen arrived. Ruben sustained
injuries and was brought to the hospital. The doctor declared that the wounds were slight and superficial, though the victim could have
been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. An appeal was made by the accused, but the Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification, changing the crime to attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate
penalty of two(2) years of prision correccional as minimum to six(6) years and one(1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
According to Esmeraldo, On May 3, 1998 1:00 pm, Ruben arrived at his house, banged the gate and challenged him and his
brothers to come out and fight. When he got out, Ruben punched him and they wrestled but Edgardo pushed Ruben aside and
Esmeraldo’s wife pulled him away and brought to their house. Ismael states that he tried to pacify them but Ruben pulled his hair.
Once he got free, he fled to their house and did not see Edgardo in the scene. On Edgardo’s accounts, he stated that on May 3, 1998
1:00 pm, he was throwing garbage in front of their house when Ruben arrived. He quickly went inside as Ruben banged the gate,
ordered him to get out and even threatened to shoot him. Esmeraldo went out to ask what Ruben’s problem was but it led to a fist
fight. He rushed outside and pushed Ruben who fell to the ground. Ruben stood up, grabbed his hair and in the process, Ruben hit
his head on a lamp post.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in judging it as attempted murder.
Ruling:
NO. Petition is denied for lack of merit. CA affirmed with modification indeterminate penalty of from two(2) years of prision
correccional in its minimum period, as minimum, to nine(9) years and four(4) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi:
When a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is evident, the crime is attempted. Intent to kill is a specific
intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the
commission of a felony by dolo. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by
the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time,
or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.
Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the 3 brothers helped each other maul the defenseless victim, and even after he had already
fallen to the ground; that one of them even picked up a cement hollow block and proceeded to hit the victim on the head with it 3 times;
and that it was only the arrival of the policemen that made them desist from their concerted act of trying to kill Ruben.
If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed. The first requisite of an attempted felony
consists of two elements, namely:
(1) That there be external acts; and
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
Overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. They attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected
manner as Ruben was walking with his 3-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent peril to his life. He had no chance to defend
himself and retaliate. He was overwhelmed by the synchronized assault of the 3 siblings. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on the victim. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel
it or defend himself, there would be treachery. There being conspiracy by and among petitioners, treachery is considered against all of
them

Rivera vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rivera vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Rivera vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIVERA vs.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.