Facts:

The case involves Pablo Villanueva as the defendant and Salvacion Tesoro as the injured party, both of whom were husband and wife residing in Balasan, Iloilo, until June 23, 1927. Prior to the incident, there had been ongoing marital discord, during which Villanueva had threatened Tesoro by brandishing a hatchet, stating that he did not acquire it for splitting wood but intended to use it on her. On the day of the incident, a verbal altercation occurred between Tesoro and Villanueva's younger sister, prompting Villanueva to intervene with a warning that "lightning is going to strike soon, and there will be a cutting." Shortly thereafter, Villanueva approached Tesoro with the hatchet and struck her on the right occipital area, inflicting a non-life-threatening gash. When Tesoro questioned him about the attack, Villanueva attempted a second blow, which she parried with her right hand, resulting in a fractured wrist. A third attempt was made, but Tesoro evaded the ...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• The accused, Pablo Villanueva, and the injured woman, Salvacion Tesoro, were husband and wife. They lived together in Balasan, Iloilo, until June 23, 1927.

Prior Ill Feeling

• Prior to the incident, there was ill feeling between the accused and his wife. A few days before the attack, during a marital dispute, the accused showed his wife a hatchet and stated that he had not bought it to split wood but to use on her body.

The Incident

• On June 23, 1927, Salvacion Tesoro had a verbal altercation with the accused's younger sister. The accused intervened and told his sister, "Leave her alone, sister, for lightning is going to strike soon, and there will be a cutting." After this, Salvacion turned away.
• Shortly after, the accused approached his wife with a hatchet and struck her on the right occipital part of her head, causing a non-dangerous gash. When Salvacion asked why he had wounded her, he attempted to strike her again. She parried the second blow with her right hand, resulting in a fractured wrist.
• The accused attempted a third blow, but Salvacion evaded it by stooping and pushing him. The hatchet's blade missed her, and only the handle struck her left shoulder. At this point, the wife of the accused's brother intervened and stopped the assault.

Injuries Sustained

• Salvacion Tesoro's head wound took about 15 days to heal, and she did not fully recover the use of her forearm for about 25 days. She still experienced pain in her wrist at the time of the trial and was unable to perform her usual duties for 15 days.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Intent to Kill Not Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt

   • The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill his wife. While the accused used a hatchet, a potentially deadly weapon, the evidence did not conclusively establish that he aimed to cause her death.
   • The Court emphasized that intent to kill must be proven with the same degree of certainty as other elements of the crime. The accused's actions, though violent, did not unequivocally demonstrate an intent to kill.

2. Qualification of the Crime

   • The trial court erred in qualifying the offense as frustrated parricide. For such a charge, it must be shown that the accused performed all acts of execution necessary to cause death, and only external factors prevented the crime's completion. This was not established in this case.
   • The injuries inflicted, while serious, did not meet the threshold for frustrated parricide. Instead, they were classified as lesiones menos graves, which required more than eight but less than thirty days to heal.

3. Aggravating Circumstance

   • The fact that the victim was the accused's wife was considered an aggravating circumstance under Article 10 of the Penal Code, increasing the severity of the penalty.

4. Voluntary Desistance

   • The Court rejected the argument that the accused voluntarily desisted from the assault due to the intervention of his sister-in-law. The intervention was minimal and did not indicate a genuine change of heart or spontaneous desistance on the part of the accused.

5. Dissent on Attempted Parricide

   • A dissenting opinion argued that the accused should be convicted of attempted parricide, as the evidence (the use of a deadly weapon, the nature of the blows, and the accused's prior threats) sufficiently demonstrated his intent to kill. The dissent also contended that the intervention of the sister-in-law did not constitute voluntary desistance, as it was an external factor rather than a spontaneous decision by the accused.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court ruled that the accused was guilty of lesiones menos graves rather than frustrated parricide or attempted parricide. The decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence proving the accused's intent to kill and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. The penalty imposed was six months of arresto mayor, with the appropriate legal accessories.