You are on page 1of 2

CASE DIGEST: De Guzman Jr. vs.

People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 178512 | November 26, 2014
Petitioner: Alfredo De Guzman Jr.
Respondent: People of the Philippines
FACTS
Ruling:
 RTC found Alfredo guilty beyond unreasonable reason in the crime of FRUSTATED
HOMICIDE and was sentenced 6 MONTHS AND 1 DAY of PRISION
CORRECTION as MINIMUM and6 YEARS AND ONE DAY of PRISION
MAYOR as MAXIMUM and pay the private complainant compensatory damages in
amount of P14,170.35
 CA dismissed the instant appeal and hereby affirmed the RTC’s decision.
 The SC affirmed the decision promulgated finding Alexander GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE and was sentenced 4 YEARS of
PRISION CORRECTIONAL as MINIMUM and 8 YEARS AND ONE DAY of
PRISION MAYOR as MAXIMUM and orders the petitioner to pay Alexander
P30,000 (CIVIL INDEMITY), P30,000 (MORAL DAMAGES) and P14,170.35 plus
interest 6% annum (COMPENSATORY DAMAGES)
Important Details:
 On the evening of Dec. 24, 1997, Alexander Fojo was fetching water below his rented
house in Mandaluyong City when he was suddenly hit on the nape by Alfredo De
Guzman, brother of Alexander’s land lady, Lucila Bautista.
 Alexander informed Lucila about what happened and she apologized on behalf of
Alejandro and told the latter to just go up.
 Later on, at around 12:00 to 12:15 pm, he went down and continued fetch water.
While pouring water, Alfredo suddenly appeared and stabbed him on left face and
chest
 Cirilino Bantaya, son-in-law of Alexander, saw the victim bleeding and begging for
help. Alexander told Cirilino that Alfredo stabbed him.
 Cirilino brought and rushed him to the Mandaluyong City Medical Center. Alexander
two (2) stabbed wounds, one in zygoma (FACE), left part and one in the upper left
chest which was fatal. The attending physician, Francisco Obmerga, stated that the
second wound could have caused Alexander’s death if he did not get rushed to the
hospital.
 Alfredo appealed to the CA, contending that his intent to kill (CRITICAL ELEMENT
OF THE CRIME CHARGED) was not established, and that any person could have
inflicted the wounds.
 Petitioner also insisted that he should be guilty of slight physical injuries, not frustrated
homicide.
Felony/Infraction/Omission:
 FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE – as ruled by RTC, CA
ISSUE
 Whether or not the INTENT TO KILL, which is a criminal element of the crime
charged, is established in the case. (RELATED TO ARTICLE 3, INTENT)
HELD
 YES. The wounds sustained by Alexander were not mere scuff-marks inflicted in the heat
of anger or as the result of a fistfight between them. The petitioner wielded and used a
knife in his assault on Alexander. There is also to be no doubt about the wound on
Alexander’s chest being sufficient to result into his death were it not for the timely medical
intervention. (ARTICLE 3, INTENT)
INTENT TO KILL is determined by the ff. factors:
1. Nature and number of the weapon used by the offender in the commission of the crime
– STABBED THE VICTIM USING A KNIFE
2. Nature, number and location of wounds inflicted/sustained by the victim – 2 wounds:
One in the ZYGOMA (left side), one in the upper left chest
3. The manner of committing the crime – Alfredo stabbed him 2 times
4. Acts, deeds or words stated by the offender before, during or immediately after the
commission of the crime – Alejandro was hit on the nape by Alfredo
5. Evidence of the motive (before or after but NOT during the commission of the crime
– direct evidence is not available)
Note:
Specific Criminal Intent – it must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt
since the VICTIM did not die in this case. If the VICTIM died, the intent to kill becomes
a GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT which is presumed by law.
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 but did not die because of timely medical
assistance; and
(3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, is present.