Title
Rivera vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 166326
Decision Date
Jan 25, 2006
Three brothers attacked Ruben Rodil with a hollow block, demonstrating intent to kill; SC ruled attempted murder with treachery, modifying penalties.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35156)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and antecedents
    • Petitioners Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo Rivera, residents of Dasmariñas, Cavite; private complainant Ruben Rodil, former taxi driver, lived nearby.
    • Prior altercation in April 1998: Rodil stopped driving due to a separate threat; incident between Rodil and Edgardo over remarks about Rodil’s livelihood.
  • Incident of May 3, 1998
    • Sequence of events:
      • At about 7:30 p.m., Rodil, with his three-year-old daughter, went to a store; petitioners emerged, mauled him with fists; Edgardo struck him thrice on the head with a hollow block; Ismael joined by throwing a stone.
      • Bystanders intervened; police arrived; petitioners fled; Rodil was taken to hospital.
    • Injuries and medical report:
      • Lacerated wound on parietal area (slight, 1–7 days healing), cerebral contusion, hematoma on buttocks, multiple abrasions, periorbital hematoma.
      • One-month medication prescribed for back pain.
  • Procedural history
    • RTC of Imus, Cavite (Branch 90) – August 30, 2002: found petitioners guilty of frustrated murder; sentenced to 6 years +1 day to 8 years prision mayor; ordered joint civil indemnity of ₱30,000.
    • Court of Appeals – June 8, 2004: affirmed with modification; convicted petitioners of attempted murder; imposed indeterminate penalty of 2 years prision correccional (minimum) to 6 years +1 day prision mayor (maximum).
    • Supreme Court petition: petitioners contended absence of intent to kill and treachery; prosecution argued evidence of intent and sudden attack; OSG supported CA decision.

Issues:

  • Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt petitioners’ specific intent to kill and the qualifying circumstance of treachery to sustain an attempted murder conviction.
  • Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals correctly reflects the law and applicable reductions for attempted murder.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.