|
ManilaFIRST
DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES,
Complainant-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 64
September
16, 1901
-versus-
VICENTE
TAGUIBAO,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
TORRES, J:
On the morning of May 27
of the current year, Vicente Taguibao, Francisco Bancut, and Pedro
Bancut
went to a place called "Buquid", in the town of Iguid.
Taguibao,
upon seeing Matias Paguiam engaged in plowing a piece of land which was
the subject matter of a dispute between Pedro Bancut and Vicente Gamat,
immediately attacked Paguiam, inflicting blows upon his neck with the
back
of the bolo. The weapon used was shown by competent testimony to be of
a class which it was permissible to carry. As a result of these blows
Paguiam,
who defended himself with his hands, received two slight wounds, before
the combatants were separated by the bystanders, who subsequently
testified
in the case.
The facts stated do
not constitute the crime of frustrated homicide, as they have been
classified
by the court below in the judgment under review, but merely a
misdemeanor
against the person, prohibited and penalized in Article 589, No. 1, of
the Penal Code. The accused did, it is true, attack the complaining
witness,
and struck him upon the neck with a bolo, but the fact that the blows
were
delivered with the back of the weapon is sufficient to preclude the
assault's
being classed as frustrated homicide. It does not appear that the
accused
intended to cause the death of Matias Paguiam. All he did was to beat
him
with the back of the bolo.
In thus classifying
an act according to the purpose of the accused, it is absolutely
necessary
that the homicidal intent be evidenced by adequate acts which at the
time
of their execution were unmistakably calculated to produce the death of
the victim, since the crime in question is one in which, more than in
any
other case, the penal law is based upon the material results produced
by
the criminal act. It is not proper or just to attribute to the
delinquent
a specific intent to commit the higher crime in the absence of proof to
justify such a conclusion.
In the present case
it can not be inferred the accused intended to kill Matias Paguiam. He
did not strike him with the cutting edge of the bolo. Consequently the
assault committed by him does not constitute the crime of frustrated
homicide,
and the defendant should be acquitted. However, as the facts proved
establish
an offense necessarily included in that which was the subject-matter of
the complaint, the offense committed should be punished by imposing
upon
the guilty party the corresponding penalty.
The judgment of the
Court below is reversed and Vicente Taguibao y Calimaran acquitted with
the costs de oficio. The defendant is condemned to the penalty
of
five days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of 125 pesetas, or in
default
thereof its equivalent in subsidiary imprisonment. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Cooper, Willard, Ladd and Mapa, JJ., concur.
|
