Title
People vs. De la Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 39552
Decision Date
Nov 24, 1933
A sudden, unprovoked stabbing by Lorenzo de la Cruz, targeting the police chief out of jealousy, resulted in a near-fatal injury. The Supreme Court upheld a frustrated murder conviction, citing intent, treachery, and motive.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 39552)

Applicable Law

The legal provisions relevant to the case are found in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, specifically concerning frustrated murder and serious physical injuries.

Summary of the Facts

On the morning of November 23, 1932, Calderon was unexpectedly attacked by de la Cruz, who stabbed him in the back with a knife. Calderon, after being stabbed, rolled down the stairway and was subsequently treated for serious wounds which required prolonged medical attention, leading to incapacity for work and incurring significant medical expenses.

Procedural History

Upon being arraigned, de la Cruz pleaded not guilty. He opted to waive his right to present any evidence in his defense during the trial. The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija subsequently rendered a judgment convicting him of frustrated murder, sentencing him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal and ordering him to indemnify Calderon.

Issue on Appeal

The principal argument on appeal raised by the appellant was that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the intention to kill, contending that he should instead be convicted of serious physical injuries.

Inference of Intent to Kill

The court analyzed whether de la Cruz's actions constituted the crime of frustrated murder or merely serious physical injuries. The court held that the intent to kill could be inferred from several factors, including the circumstances surrounding the attack, the weapon used, and the nature of the inflicted wound. The prosecution successfully argued that de la Cruz's motives, stemming from jealousy regarding a relationship with Calderon, added context to his actions.

Essential Elements of Frustrated Murder

The court found that the crime committed involved the use of a deadly weapon against a vital area of Calderon’s body. Moreover, the treacherous manner of the attack—being executed from behind—resulted in Calderon being caught off guard, thus fulfilling the criteria necessary to classify the defendant's actions as those of frust

...continue reading

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