Mondragon v. People
Mondragon v. People
Mondragon v. People
SYLLABUS
DECISION
ZALDIVAR, J : p
'1. Incised wound about 2-1/2 inches long and 1/3 inch
deep cutting diagonally across the angle of the left jaw.
'4. Incised wound about 3-1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch
deep at the left side of the lower part of left arm.
'5. Incised wound about 1/2 inch long at the back of the
left index, middle and ring fingers.
The issue raised by the petitioner in the present appeal is that the
Court of Appeals erred in finding him guilty of the crime of attempted
homicide and not of the crime of less serious physical injuries. It is the
contention of the petitioner that the facts as found by the Court of Appeals
do not show that the petitioner had the intention to kill the offended party.
There is merit in the contention of the petitioner. We have carefully
examined the record, and We find that the intention of the petitioner to kill
the offended party has not been conclusively shown. The finding of the Court
of Appeals that the petitioner had the intention to kill the offended party is
simply the result of an inference from an answer made by the petitioner
while testifying in his own behalf. Thus in the decision appealed from, it is
stated:
" . . . Appellant's intention to kill may be inferred from his admission
made in Court that he would do everything he could to stop Nacionales
from digging the canal because he needed the water."
The facts as found by the Court of Appeals, in our opinion, do not
establish the intent to kill on the part of the petitioner. Rather, We gather
that what happened was that the petitioner and the offended party had a
quarrel over the matter regarding the opening of the canal which would
drain the water away from the land of the petitioner, and because of this
quarrel a fight between them took place. The fight started with the petitioner
first giving fist blows to the offended party and later he drew his bolo and
inflicted on the offended party the injuries which the Court of Appeals found
to be not necessarily fatal and which were certified by a government medical
officer that they would heal in less than 30 days. The facts as found by the
Court of Appeals also show that the offended party drew his bolo and hit the
petitioner on different parts of his body, and that the petitioner retreated
and did not insist on hitting the offended party with his bolo. It may be
assumed that the petitioner drew his bolo and hit the offended party with it
only when the offended party had shown a defiant attitude, considering that
the offended party himself had a bolo, as in fact the offended party had also
drawn his bolo and hit the petitioner with it. We consider that under the
circumstances surrounding the fight between the petitioner and the offended
party the intention of the petitioner to kill the offended party was not
manifest.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the petitioner had the intention to
kill the offended party when the petitioner answered in the affirmative the
question as to whether he would do everything that he could do to stop the
offended party from digging the canal because he needed the water. We
reproduce here the transcript of the pertinent testimony.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. MORADA:
"Q In other words you want to tell us that you will do everything
you could to stop Nacionales digging the canal, because you
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
need water?.
ATTY. CANTO:
Footnotes
1. See also: U.S. vs. Reyes and Palanca, 30 Phil. 551; U.S. vs. Mendoza, 38 Phil.
691; People vs. Montes, 53 Phil. 323; People vs. Pacusbas and Pacusbas, 64
Phil. 614; and People vs. Penesa, 81 Phil. 398.