||| 

(Etino v. People, G.R. No. 206632, [February 14, 2018])

EDEN ETINO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

1. On the 5th day of November 2001, in the Municipality of Maasin, Iloilo, Eden
Etino (petitioner), shot Jessierel Leyble (victim) with unlicensed firearm.

2. According to the victim, while he was on his way home along with his two friends,
he was shot with a 12 gauge shotgun by Etino (petitioner), hitting him in the back
portion of his right shoulder and other parts of his body.

3. He was then brought to the hospital for treatment wherein he survived.

4. Etino (petitioner) alleged that he could not have been the one who shot the victim
because he was at the house of a certain Bautista Etino with two others which
was situated one kilometer away from where the shooting happened.

5. The RTC decided against the petitioner and found the latter to be guilty of the
crime of frustrated homicide wherein the CA has subsequently affirmed.

Issue: The issue of this case is whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime
of frustrated homicide.

Held: The court held that Etino is not guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide
but is liable for the crime of serious physical injuries instead.

----------------------

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code states that there is a commission of a frustrated
felony “when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator”

Thus in order to determine whether the crime committed is attempted or frustrated

homicide, or only physical injuries, the points to consider are:

1.) whether the injury sustained by the victim was fatal

and
2.) whether there was intent to kill on the part of the accused.
As such, 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.

In this case, the Court found that:

1.There is no proof of the extent of injury sustained by the victim –the prosecution
failed to present evidence to prove that the victim would have died from his wound
without timely medical assistance, as his medical certificate alone, absent the
testimony of the physician who diagnosed and treated him, or any physician for that
matter, is insufficient proof of the nature and extent of his injury; and

2.The intent to kill was not sufficiently established– Aside from the fact that the
petitioner fired a 12-gauge shotgun at the victim there was no other evidence on
record that tended to prove that the former had intent to kill the victim. On
the contrary, none of the prosecution’s witness testified that petitioner had indeed
aimed and fired the shotgun to kill the victim.
First, the petitioner only fired a single shot but did not hit any vital parts of the
victim’s body and he immediately fled the scene right after the shooting.
Furthermore, it was even shown that the victims and his companions even went in
pursuit of petitioner after the incident. When the intent to kill is lacking, but wounds
are shown to have been inflicted upon the victim, as in this case, the crime is not
frustrated or attempted homicide but physical injuries only.