You are on page 1of 4

[G.R. No. 190798. January 27, 2016.

]
RONALD IBAEZ, EMILIO IBAEZ, and DANIEL "BOBOT" IBAEZ, petitioners, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Guilt Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt
At any rate, the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA, which are backed
up by substantial evidence on record, led this Court to no other conclusion than that
the petitioners are guilty of frustrated homicide.
The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim,
as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained
fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and
(3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, is present. 39 There being no prior determination by both
the trial and appellate courts of any qualifying circumstance that would elevate the
homicide to murder, the Court will simply limit its discussion to the first two
elements.
In ascertaining whether intent to kill exists, the Court considers the presence of the
following factors: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location
and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors
before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the
circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the
accused. 40
Here, intent to kill Rodolfo was evident in the manner in which he was attacked, by
the concerted actions of the accused, the weapon used and the nature of wounds
sustained by Rodolfo.
Both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the presence of conspiracy. Conspiracy
presupposes unity of purpose and unity of action towards the realization of an
unlawful objective among the accused. 41 Its existence can be inferred from the
individual acts of the accused, which if taken as a whole are in fact related, and
indicative of a concurrence of sentiment. 42 In this case, conspiracy was manifested
in the spontaneous and coordinated acts of the accused, where two of them
delivered the initial attack on Rodolfo by stoning, while another struck him with a
shovel and the third held him so that the other two can simultaneously stab Rodolfo.
It was only when Rodolfo laid helpless on the ground and had lost consciousness
that the accused hurriedly left the scene. This chain of events leading to the
commission of the crime adequately established a conspiracy among them.
Plainly, the kind of weapon used for the attack, in this case, a knife and the vital
parts of Rodolfo's body at which he was undeniably stabbed demonstrated
petitioners' intent to kill. The medico-legal certificate revealed that Rodolfo
sustained multiple stab wounds in the epigastrium, left upper quadrant of the
abdomen resulting to internal injuries in the transverse colon (serosal), mesentery
and left kidney. 43 Given these injuries, Rodolfo would have succumbed to death if
not for the emergency surgical intervention. TIADCc
With respect to the petitioners' defenses of denial and alibi, the Court concurs with
the lower courts' rejection of these defenses. An assessment of the defenses of
denial and alibi necessitates looking into the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies. Well-settled is the rule that in determining who between the
prosecution and defense witnesses are to be believed, the evaluation of the trial
court is accorded much respect for the simple reason that the trial court is in a
better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they deliver their
testimonies. 44 As such, the findings of the trial court is accorded finality unless it
has overlooked substantial facts which if properly considered, could alter the result
of the case. 45
In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from this rule
considering the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
The trial and appellate courts were right in not giving probative value to petitioners'
denial. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that further crumbles when it comes
face-to-face with the positive identification and straightforward narration of the
prosecution witnesses. 46 Between an affirmative assertion which has a ring of truth
to it and a general denial, the former generally prevails. 47 The prosecution
witnesses recounted the details of the crime in a clear, detailed and consistent
manner, without any hint of hesitation or sign of untruthfulness, which they could
not have done unless they genuinely witnessed the incident. Besides, the
prosecution witnesses could not have mistakenly identified the petitioners as
Rodolfo's perpetrators considering there is so much familiarity among them. The
records are also bereft of any indication that the prosecution witnesses were
actuated by ill motives whe

"If the victim's wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or
attempted homicide." (Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011,
662 SCRA 266, 276.)

G.R. No. 178512. November 26, 2014.]


ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

The essential element in frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent of the


offender to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of
injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent that the State must allege in the
information, and then prove by either direct or circumstantial evidence, as
differentiated from a general criminal intent, which is presumed from the
commission of a felony by dolo. 8 Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned
by the courts only through external manifestations, i.e., the acts and conduct of the
accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. In Rivera v. People, 9
we considered the following factors to determine the presence of intent to kill,
namely: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and
number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors
before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the
circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the
accused. We have also considered as determinative factors the motive of the
offender and the words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries on the victim.
10 EDSAac

It is settled that if the victim's wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted
murder or attempted homicide. 26 Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748,
December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 266, 276.

Usually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the
offender and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was
aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. Hence, when a deadly weapon,
like a bolo, is used to stab the victim in the latter's abdomen, the intent to
kill can be presumed (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 13th ED., P. 431).

his Court stated in Palaganas v. People (G.R. No. 165483, September 12,
2006, 533 Phil. 169, 193 [2006]): "when the accused intended to kill his
victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault, and his
victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely
medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder or
frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the qualifying
circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code are present.
However, if the wound/s sustained by the victim in such a case were not
fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is only attempted murder or
attempted homicide. If there was no intent to kill on the part of the
accused and the wound/s sustained by the victim were not fatal, the crime
committed may be serious, less serious or slight physical injury."

[G.R. No. 176609. December 18, 2008.]


FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN alias PADO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
An essential element of homicide, whether in its consummated, frustrated
or attempted stage, is intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately
before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a
specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or
circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from
the commission of a felony by dolo. 38
Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist,
inter alia, of 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 of, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the
circumstances under which the crime was committed; and the motive of
the accused. 39
In the instant case, petitioner used a lethal weapon, i.e., a gun, in
assaulting Paradero. He shot Paradero twice at a distance of two meters.
40 The bullet from the first shot hit Paradero's left chest. The trajectory of
the bullet hit Paradero's vital organs such as the liver and colon. The
bullet from the second shot hit Paradero's left earlobe. Moreover, Dr.
Guardiario testified that the injury on Paradero's colon was fatal and
would have caused her death were it not for the timely medical attention
given her. 41 The seriousness of Paradero's injuries was also shown by the
fact that she was confined and operated on twice in different hospitals for
the wound sustained in the colon. Verily, the foregoing circumstances
clearly manifest intent to kill on the part of petitioner. cADTSH
Even assuming, arguendo, that Paradero sustained only one gunshot
wound, such does not negate intent to kill on the part of petitioner. The
number of wounds inflicted is not the sole consideration in proving intent
to kill. 42 As earlier mentioned, the means used by the malefactors and
the nature and location of the wounds also manifest intent to kill.
Petitioner's use of a gun in shooting Paradero on the chest and the fact
that the bullet hit some of her vital organs of Paradero clearly indicate
intent to kill.