THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ESTEBAN PACIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

January 15, 1925, the provincial fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance of Abra the following information:

“The undersigned accuses Esteban Pacis of the crime of frustrated murder, committed as follows:

“That
on or about the 6th day of February, 1922, in the municipality of
Bucay, Province of Abra, Philippine Islands, the said accused
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with intent to kill, and with
treachery, assaulted and attacked Fernando Bobiles while the latter was
asleep in his home by striking him with a deadly weapon, to wit: A
bolo, thereby inflicting serious wounds in the person of Fernando
Bobiles, thus performing all the acts of execution which should have
produced the crime of murder as consequence, but nevertheless did not
produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, by the
timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Fernando Bobiles
which has prevented his death.

“That besides the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, there were also present in the
commission of this crime, the aggravating: circumstance of nocturnity
and the employment of means to insure or afford immunity.

“All contrary to law.”

As a result of the trial, the defendant was found guilty of the crime
of frustrated murder and sentenced to fourteen years, eight months and
one day imprisonment, with the accessories of the law, and to pay the
costs. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in
designating the crime committed against Fernando Bobiles as frustrated
murder, and in declaring the defendant guilty of that crime, and in not
acquitting him of the charge.

JOHNS, J.:

About midnight of February 6, 1922, while Fernando Bobiles was asleep
in his own home in the barrio of Ucab, municipality of Bucay, Abra, he
was suddenly and treacherously attacked with a bolo, as a result of
which he received six serious wounds, one below the right elbow which
required sixty-three days to cure, one below the abdomen affecting the
peritoneum, curable in fifty days, one on the right lower jaw, curable
in twenty-five days, one below the right ear, curable in fifteen days,
and a wound on the left wrist, affecting the cubital artery and the
bones, curable in fifty-four days, and the last below the right
shoulder which caused a permanent disability. At the same time and
place an assault was committed on Dionisia Bobiles, the wife of
Fernando Bobiles, and upon their daughter Rufina Bobiles.

The evidence is conclusive that it was the defendant who committed the
crime, and it appears from the nature and number of the wounds
inflicted upon Fernando Bobiles that the assault was both vicious and
brutal, and that it was made with intent to kill, and that it is very
fortunate for the defendant that it did not result in a higher crime.

The defendant cites and relies upon the decision of this court in the case of People vs. Yabot (45 Phil., 207, 210), where it is held:

“As
we analyze the evidence, the proof is not sufficient to sustain either
frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. At no time or in any manner
was the defendant frustrated in the commission of the act. In other
words, he was not in any manner prevented from killing Carmona. It is
true that Carmona was seriously wounded. It is also true that, through
medical treatment, he fully recovered. But the fact that he recovered
through medical treatment does not make the crime either frustrated
murder or frustrated homicide, or in any manner change the character or
nature of the crime.”

It also appears from
that opinion that in that case the injuries were inflicted during a
fight between the defendant and the offended party which took place out
in the open. The facts in that case are very different from those in
the instant case. The prosecution cites the case of United States vs.
Sanchez (20 Phil., 427), in which the defendant was convicted of
frustrated murder upon proof that he entered the house and stabbed
Walter P. Linton and Nina Linton while they were asleep, and that the
wounds inflicted were cured after more than thirty days’ medical
attendance. In that case the court says:

“The
particular part of the body of a person struck during an assault, the
deadly character of the weapon used and the violence of the attack,
taken together, do not constitute proof of an intention to kill when
they are all incidental to a quarrel in which the contending parties
come to blows; under such circumstances, the actual conditions
surrounding the encounter form the best criterion by which to arrive at
the facts; but when all the said circumstances are present, and the
crime further involves acts committed with alevosia, in such
manner as to insure the safety of the assailant while depriving the
victim of the opportunity to make defense, and when the aggressor,
having special knowledge of the place of the assault, surprises and
attacks his victim while the latter is asleep, and is then able to
escape because of his intimate acquaintance with the interior of the
house, in which he was formerly employed as a servant, the intention to
kill clearly appears and the crime is properly classified as frustrated
murder.”

That is this case. Here, the
offended party was in his own home sound asleep and defenseless, in
which condition and about midnight six serious wounds were
treacherously inflicted upon him, with the apparent intent to kill.

Through a mistake or oversight, the Acting Attorney-General recommends
that the defendant be sentenced to eight years and one day of presidio mayor. Upon the facts, the penalty imposed by the lower court is right. There is no merit in the appeal.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Villamor, J., did not take part.