8/12/2019 Us v Tagibao

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-v-tagibao 1/2

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

United States vs. Taguibao

[No. 64. September 10, 1901.]

THE UNITED STATES, complainant and appellee, vs. VICENTE TAGUIBAO, defendant and appellant.

1.CRIMINAL LAW; ASSAULT; FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE.—The mere fact that an assault is committed with

the back instead of the cutting edge of a bolo negatives the idea of homicidal intent and precludes the

crime's constituting frustrated homicide.

2.ID.; HOMICIDAL INTEST.—Homicidal intent must be evidenced by acts which at the time of their

execution are unmistakably calculated to produce the death of the victim by adequate means.

3.ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.—The misdemeanor of assault is necessarily included in the crime of

frustrated homicide, and a defendant on trial for the greater may properly be convicted of the lesser

crime.

REVIEW of a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Lorenzo Alberto, for appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.

TORRES, J.:

On the morning of May 27 of the current year Vicente Taguibao, Francisco Bancut, and Pedro Bancut

went to a place called "Buquid," in the town of Iguid. Taguibao, upon seeing Matias Paguiam engaged in

plowing a piece of

17

VOL. 1, SEPTEMBER 16, 1901

17

United States vs. Taguibao

land which was the subject-matter of a dispute between Pedro Bancut and Vicente Gamat, immediately

attacked Paguiam, inflicting blows upon his neck with the back of the bolo. The weapon used was shown

by competent testimony to be of a class which it was permissible to carry. As a result of these blows

8/12/2019 Us v Tagibao

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-v-tagibao 2/2

Paguiam, who defended himself with his hands, received two slight wounds, before the combatants

were separated by the bystanders, who subsequently testified in the case.

The facts stated do not constitute the crime of frustrated homicide, as they have been classified by the

court below in the judgment under review, but merely a misdemeanor against the person, prohibited

and penalized in article 589, No. 1, of the Penal Code. The accused did, it is true, attack the complainingwitness, and struck him upon the neck with a bolo, but the fact that the blows were delivered with the

back of the weapon is sufficient to preclude the assault's being classed as frustrated homicide. It does

not appear that the accused intended to cause the death of Matias Paguiam. All he did was to beat him

with the back of the bolo.

In thus classifying an act according to the purpose of the accused, it is absolutely necessary that the

homicidal intent be evidenced by adequate acts which at the time of their execution were unmistakably

calculated to produce the death of the victim, since the crime in question is one in which, more than in

any other case, the penal law is based upon the material results produced by the criminal act. It is not

proper or just to attribute to the delinquent a specific intent to commit the higher crime in the absence

of proof to justify such a conclusion.

In the present case it can not be inferred the accused intended to kill Matias Paguiam. He did not strike

him with the cutting edge of the bolo. Consequently the assault committed by him does .not constitute

the crime of frustrated homicide, and the defendant should be acquitted. However, as the facts proved

establish an offense necessarily included in that which was the subject-matter of the

18

18

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

United States vs. Sweet

complaint, the offense committed should be punished by imposing upon the guilty party the

corresponding penalty. The judgment of the court below is reversed and Vicente Taguibao y Calimaran

acquitted with the costs de oficio. The defendant is condemned to the penalty of five days of arresto

menor and to pay a fine of 125 pesetas, or in default thereof its equivalent in subsidiary imprisonment.

So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Cooper, Willard, Ladd, and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified. [United States vs. Taguibao, 1 Phil., 16(1901)]