Miranda v. People

 

Miranda v. People

G.R. No. 234528

January 23, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Isidro Miranda of the crime of frustrated homicide. He used a bolo to repeatedly hack Winardo Pilo y Mortiz on the different parts of the latter’s body. Thus, performing all acts of execution which would produce the crime of homicide as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the same by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused. However due to timely medical assistance, Pilo lived. This started when Pilo attended a party of his niece in Brgy. Infanta Quezon and while coming back home with his friend Damaso they threw stones at the house of Miranda. According to Miranda, he was with his wife and daughter when he heard stones hitting their house. Before he peeped he heard Pilo asking him to fight. Soon as he checked out Pilo, Miranda was hit at the right cheek with a stone and when Pilo was about to get another stone, Miranda hacked his arm using Miranda’s bolo. Damaso on the other hand sustained injuries because he grappled with Miranda to get a hold of the bolo. Miranda claims that he did it in self-defense. RTC said his claim is biased, self-serving, inconsistent, illogical, and contrary to the common experience of man. The CA said that it cannot be regarded as an unlawful aggression that the latter’s  but there is a sufficient provocation on the part of Pilo because the throwing of stones endangered the lives of Miranda’s family that naturally the latter would be enraged.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Miranda is guilty of frustrated homicide.

HELD:

                Yes. In cases of frustrated homicide the following elements must be present: 1.) The accused intended to kill the victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault. 2.) The victim sustained a fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance. 3.) None of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the RPC are present.  In Rivera v. People, it enumerated the factors that determine the presence of intent to kill: 1.) The means used by the malefactor. 2.) The nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim. 3.) The conduct of the malefactor before, during or immediately after the killing of the victim. 4.) The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. The records show that he used a 1 ½ feet bolo which caused a 5 inch wound and 1 inch deep fracture and 1.5 inch long by one-inch deep in Pilo's forearm. The continuous attacks were stopped only through Damaso’s intervention which manifests Miranda’s intent to kill. Pilo was merely throwing stones at the house of Miranda and that Pilo. His act of merely stooping down to the ground was in no way a threat to Miranda’s life. The Court elucidated that although the victim may have been the initial aggressor, he ceased to be the aggressor as soon as he was dispossessed of the weapon. It is already retaliation, not self-defense. Miranda, nevertheless is entitle to the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of Pilo.