View full case

ESMERALDO RIVERA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Esmeraldo, Ismael, and Edgardo Rivera were charged with attempted murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite. The incident occurred on May 3, 1998, in Barangay San Isidro Labrador II, Dasmariñas, Cavite. Ruben Rodil, accompanied by his three-year-old daughter, went to a store to buy food and look for his wife. Esmeraldo and his brothers then approached Ruben and launched an attack. Esmeraldo and Ismael punched Ruben, causing him to fall to the ground, while Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block on the head. The brothers continued to beat Ruben until the arrival of the police. Ruben sustained injuries, including lacerations, contusion, and abrasions.

During the trial, Ruben testified about the incident, and his attending physician, Dr. Lamberto Cagingin, Jr., provided medical documentation of Ruben's injuries. The accused, on the other hand, claimed self-defense and denied any intention to kill Ruben.

The RTC found the accused guilty of frustrated murder and sentenced them to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to attempted murder. The accused then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decision. They argued that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill and treachery. The Office of the Solicitor General supported the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the intent to kill was established beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether the superficial nature of the victim's injuries negates the criminal liability of the defendants for attempted murder.

  3. Whether the acts committed by the petitioners constituted an attempted felony.

  4. Whether treachery was present in the commission of the felony.

RULING:

  1. The intent to kill was established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the defendants, aided by each other, attacked the defenseless victim with force and continued to do so even after the victim had fallen to the ground. One of the defendants even used a cement hollow block to strike the victim on the head three times. The arrival of the police was the only reason the defendants stopped their attempt to kill the victim. Thus, the Court held that the intent to kill was evident and established beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. The superficial nature of the victim's injuries does not negate the criminal liability of the defendants for attempted murder. The Court explained that even though the head wounds sustained by the victim were not fatal, the defendants can still be held criminally liable for attempted murder. The fact that the defendants carried out a sustained and concerted effort to attack the victim, using a cement hollow block as a weapon, demonstrated their intent to kill. Therefore, the Court held that the superficial injuries did not negate the intent to kill and the criminal liability of the defendants for attempted murder.

  3. Yes, the acts committed by the petitioners constituted an attempted felony. An overt or external act, which indicates the intention to commit a crime, is necessary for the establishment of an attempted felony. In this case, the petitioners assaulted the victim by mauling him and hitting him three times with a hollow block. Although they narrowly missed hitting the middle portion of his head, this act constituted the commencement of the commission of the crime and had a direct connection to the intended murder offense.

  4. Yes, treachery was present in the commission of the felony. Treachery exists when there is a sudden and unexpected attack on the victim, giving no opportunity for the victim to defend himself or repel the attack. In this case, the petitioners assaulted the victim in a sudden and unexpected manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter. The victim had no chance to defend himself and was overwhelmed by their synchronized assault. Hence, treachery is considered against all the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence. General criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.

  • Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among others, in the means used by the offenders, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the offenders before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, and the motives of the accused.

  • The superficial nature of the victim's injuries does not negate criminal liability for attempted murder if there is evidence of an intent to kill.

  • An overt or external act, which indicates the intention to commit a crime, is necessary for the establishment of an attempted felony.

  • Treachery exists when there is a sudden and unexpected attack on the victim, giving no opportunity for the victim to defend himself.