Rivera v.

People

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 2 years of prision correccional as
minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not there was intent to kill.

2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted
murder.

HELD:

1) Yes. The Court declared that 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. In the
present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three
times with a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and
could not have produced his death, intent to kill was presumed.

2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and
could not have produced his death, it does not negate criminal liability of the accused for attempted
murder. The intent to kill was already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact, victim
could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.