G.R. No. 64 , September 16, 1901
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. VICENTE TAGUIBAO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the morning of May 27, 1901, Vicente Taguibao, together with Francisco Bancut and Pedro Bancut, went to a place called “Buquid” in the town of Iguid. There, Taguibao saw Matias Paguiam plowing a piece of land that was the subject of a dispute between Pedro Bancut and Vicente Gamat. Taguibao immediately attacked Paguiam, striking him on the neck with the back of a boloa type of weapon legally permissible to carry. Paguiam defended himself with his hands and sustained two slight wounds before bystanders intervened and separated them. The lower court convicted Taguibao of the crime of frustrated homicide.

ISSUE:
Whether the acts committed by Vicente Taguibao constitute the crime of frustrated homicide or merely a misdemeanor (less serious physical injury) under the Penal Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the facts do not constitute frustrated homicide. The Court emphasized that for frustrated homicide to exist, there must be clear evidence of a homicidal intent, demonstrated by acts unmistakably calculated to cause the victim’s death. Here, Taguibao used the back of the bolo, not the cutting edge, and the resulting wounds were slight. This manner of attack precluded a finding of intent to kill. Consequently, the act was classified as a misdemeanor against the person under Article 589, No. 1 of the Penal Code (a lesser offense included in the charge).

The judgment of the lower court was reversed. Vicente Taguibao was acquitted of frustrated homicide. However, as the proven facts established the lesser included offense, he was sentenced to five days of arresto menor and a fine of 125 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Costs were adjudged de oficio.