Rivera vs.

People
G.R. No. 166326. January 25, 2006
Petitioners: Esmeraldo Rivera, Ismael Rivera, and Edgardo Rivera
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr.

Photo courtesy of Google Images

FACTS:
As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store to buy food, accused Edgardo Rivera mocked him
for being jobless and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a
heated exchange of words ensued. In the evening of the following day, when Ruben and his threeyear-old daughter went to the store to buy food, Edgardo, together with his brother Esmeraldo
Rivera and Ismael Rivera, emerged from their house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael
mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a
hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house only when the
policemen arrived. Ruben sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital. The doctor declared
that the wounds were slight and superficial, though the victim could have been killed had the police
not promptly intervened. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder.
An appeal was made by the accused, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with
modification, changing the crime to attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 2
years of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.
ISSUES:
1)

Whether

or

not

there

was

intent

to

kill.

2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to
attempted

murder.

3) Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly applied.

4) Whether or not the correct penalty was imposed.
HELD:
1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist,
inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds
sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors 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. In the present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while
Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim
were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, intent to kill was presumed.
2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of

execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and
could not have produced his death, it does not negate criminal liability of the accused for attempted
murder. The intent to kill was already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact,
victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which gives no opportunity for
the victim to repel it or defend himself. In the present case, the accused attacked the victim in a
sudden and unexpected manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of
the imminent peril to his life. He was overwhelmed with the assault of the accused and had no
chance to defend himself and retaliate. Thus, there was treachery.
4) No. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the
penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the accused were guilty only of attempted
murder, the penalty should be reduced by two degrees, in accordance to Article 51 of the Revised
Penal Code. Thus, under Article 61 (2), in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
should be prision mayor. In the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the
crime other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate
penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor which has a range of from eight (8)
years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the
penalty of prision mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of
six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the accused were sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as
minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum.