G.R. No. L-47822 - De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves petitioner Isidoro Mondragon and complainant Serapion Nacionales.
The incident occurred on July 11, 1954, at Nacionales’ ricefield in Antandan, Miagao, Iloilo, where Nacionales was preparing the field for planting by opening a dike to drain water.

While Nacionales was opening the dike, he heard a voice warning him not to do so.
Nacionales observed the petitioner approaching and heard him command, “Don’t you dare open the dike.”
A physical fight ensued wherein Mondragon first tried to hit Nacionales, who then dodged the blow.

Following the initial exchange of fist blows, Mondragon drew his bolo and struck Nacionales multiple times.
In response, Nacionales unsheathed his own bolo and struck Mondragon on various parts of his body in a self-defense effort.
During the altercation, the petitioner eventually retreated as Nacionales continued his defensive actions.

Complainant Nacionales sustained several incised wounds, as certified by Dr. Alfredo Jamandre, Municipal Health Officer of Miagao, Iloilo.
The injuries included:

An incised wound approximately 2-1/2 inches long and 1/3 inch deep cutting diagonally across the left jaw.
An incised wound 1-1/2 inches long, cutting to a depth of 3/4 centimeters beneath the right eye.
An incised wound about 1 inch long on the lateral side of the left wrist.
An incised wound around 3-1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch deep on the lower part of the left arm.
An incised wound about 1/2 inch long on the back of the left index, middle, and ring fingers.
An incised wound approximately 1 inch long on the palmar side of the left thumb.

It was indicated that, barring complications, the wounds could heal within 20 to 25 days.

Initially, Mondragon was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for frustrated homicide.
However, after trial, he was found guilty of attempted homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term—from months and 21 days of arresto mayor to 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional—with accessory penalties and costs.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in all its parts, incorporating the findings of fact and conclusions concerning intent and the nature of the injuries.

A pivotal point arose from Mondragon’s testimony on January 14, 1959, where he admitted that he would “do everything he could” to stop Nacionales from digging the canal because he needed the water.
This statement, made almost five years after the incident, was used by the lower courts to infer that Mondragon had the intention to kill.
The context and delay in the testimony raised questions regarding the accuracy and categorical nature of his intent at the time of the incident.

Whether the facts and evidence, including the petitioner’s later statement, sufficiently establish an intent to kill as required for the crime of attempted homicide.

The interpretation of the phrase “do everything” as evidence of an unqualified intention to commit homicide is questioned.
The delay between the occurrence of the incident (1954) and the testimony (1959) casts doubts on the reliability of inferring intent based solely on this statement.

Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant, which were non-fatal and expected to heal within a relatively short period, substantiate a conviction for attempted homicide or rather warrant a conviction for less serious physical injuries.

The nature and severity of the wounds, as attested by a government medical officer, suggest that they were not necessarily fatal.
The sequence of the fight—including the petitioner’s retreat when struck back—raises questions as to whether there was a manifest intention to kill.

Whether the reappraisal of the evidence justifies modifying the petitioner’s conviction from attempted homicide to less serious physical injuries under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code.