Case Digest (G.R. No. CA-263)
Facts:
In The People of the Philippines vs. Timoteo Penesa (81 Phil. 398, August 19, 1948), appellant Timoteo Penesa and his common‐law wife, Rosario Aguillon, resided in Barrio Marupit, Camalines Sur, along with Rosario’s daughter and five children from a prior marriage. After recurrent quarrels, they agreed on August 30, 1942 to separate and to divide their lumber and firewood. The next morning, Penesa returned to persuade Rosario to live elsewhere with him. When she refused, her cousin, Santiago Cerrado, reproached Penesa for his presence. Enraged, Penesa drew a bolo and wounded Santiago on the left forearm and under the axilla. Crescencio Doro, Rosario’s eldest son, attempted to intervene and suffered multiple chops: serious lacerations on his left palm severing bone joints, and cuts on his axilla, elbow, and right hand. At trial, Penesa was convicted of frustrated homicide, mitigated by passion and obfuscation, and sentenced to six years and one day of prisión mayor. On appeal, PeCase Digest (G.R. No. CA-263)
Facts:
- Background
- Parties and household
- Timoteo Penesa (husband) and Rosario Aguillon (wife) cohabited in Marupit, Camaligan, Camarines Sur, with their daughter and Rosario’s five children by a previous marriage.
- Continuous quarrels between Timoteo and his stepchildren led to an agreement on 30 August 1942 to live separately and to divide household property (palav, lumber, firewood).
- Return to the marital home
- On 31 August 1942, Timoteo returned early morning and asked Rosario to live with him elsewhere; she refused.
- Rosario’s cousin, Santiago Cerrado, arrived and challenged Timoteo’s presence, provoking him to draw a bolo and assault Santiago.
- Crescencio Doro (Rosario’s eldest son) intervened and was also attacked. Rosario’s brother disarmed Timoteo, seizing both bolo and dagger.
- Injuries and Trial Court Findings
- Injuries inflicted
- Santiago: two non-serious wounds (left forearm; under left axilla).
- Crescencio: multiple cuts including a 3-inch deep palm wound severing finger joints (serious; risk of death by hemorrhage if untreated), and other arm and hand lacerations.
- Trial court decision
- Convicted Timoteo of frustrated homicide.
- Found mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation; no aggravating circumstances.
- Sentence: 6 years + 1 day prisiòn mayor, with legal accessories and costs.
- Appellant’s Version and Supreme Court’s Credibility Findings
- Appellant’s claim: he was pushed and attacked, drew the bolo from a wall partition in self-defense, and struck his assailants indiscriminately.
- Court’s rejection
- Physical layout rendered bolo retrieval implausible while being pushed.
- Implausibility of self-defense story given consistency of prosecution witnesses and logical narrative.
- Appellant arrived armed, indicating offensive rather than defensive intent.
Issues:
- Classification of the crime: whether the acts constituted frustrated homicide or physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code.
- Existence of intent to kill: whether appellant’s purpose in returning to the house was homicidal.
- Lawfulness of the prosecuting officer’s appointment and propriety of denying appellant’s motion for new trial.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)