1

FERNANDO N. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. (G.R. No.

241557, December 11, 2019)

Facts:

On January 21, 2011 at around 1:00 a.m., Garino and an unknown companion were seated inside a jeepney which was
parked in front of Fernandez's house, when Garino saw someone go out of the gate.  When they heard a gunshot, they
immediately alighted from the jeepney, and it was then that Garino saw that the person who fired the shot was Fernandez,
though he did not know the latter's name at the time. As the two ran away, Fernandez fired his gun a second time, hitting
Garino on his right gluteal area, or "buttocks" in layman's terms. Garino was then brought to the Ospital ng Makati and
resultantly underwent immediate surgery. He was confined for some two weeks and spent almost P200,000.00 for his stay in
the hospital.

Garino presented his doctor, Dr. Teresita Sanchez (Dr. Sanchez), as a witness, who testified that Garino was near death when
he was taken to the hospital, and had to undergo a second operation because his large vessel, external iliac vein and
intestines were injured.

When questioned if he knew who his assailant was, Garino testified that he previously saw him at the salon where he and a
certain Me-Ann Barcenas (Barcenas) worked. He found out his assailant's name only when Barcenas visited him at the
hospital a few days after his surgery. Of note, however, neither Barcenas nor Garino's companion during the night of the
shooting was presented as witness for the prosecution, as only Garino, his brother Albert, who had the incident blottered at
the police station, and Dr. Sanchez were presented to testify.

For its version of the facts, the defense presented Fernandez himself, as well as his son Jayvee, to testify as witnesses.
Fernandez, a retired police officer, vehemently denied the prosecution's version of the events and claimed that he was
sleeping with his wife at the time of the incident and was unaware of any unusual incident outside his house at the
time.9 According to Fernandez, he was not investigated by the police or by any barangay official on the alleged shooting, and
only learned of the charge for Frustrated Murder upon receipt of a subpoena from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
City.10

While Fernandez admitted owning the jeepney parked outside his house, he denied any knowledge of Garino and said that he
first laid eyes on the latter only during the trial proper. He could likewise not think of any reason why Garino would file a
case against him.11

The RTC rendered a Decision12 on April 27, 2015 convicting Fernandez of the crime of Frustrated Murder.

Fernandez filed a Notice of Appeal on September 17, 2015 which was given due course by the CA however, the CA denied
Fernandez's appeal for lack of merit, and affirmed with modification Fernandez's conviction as meted out by the RTC.

Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not Fernandez is indeed guilty of the crime of Frustrated Murder.

Ruling: No. The Court acquits Fernandez on the ground of reasonable doubt.

While motive is generally immaterial when it comes to considering intent in a criminal case, it can help facilitate the
intrusion into the accused's mind especially when there is an issue as to the identity of the latter. In  People v. De
Guzman, the Court explained, thus:

Generally, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and does not have to be proven. Proof of the same,
however, becomes relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity of the assailant is in question. In  People v. Vidad,
the Court said:

It is true that it is not indispensable to conviction for murder that the particular motive for taking the life of a human being
shall be established at the trial, and that in general when the commission of a crime is clearly proven, conviction may and
should follow even where the reason for its commission is unknown; but in many criminal cases, one of the most important
aids in completing the proof of the commission of the crime by the accused is the introduction of evidence disclosing the
motive which tempted the mind to indulge in the criminal act. (Citations omitted)
In the case at bar, there is no indication that Fernandez and Garino knew each other beforehand, and as mentioned, it seems
to be a matter of mere convenience that Garino zeroed in on Fernandez as the culprit only after a conversation with
 2

Barcenas. There was also no plausible reason for Fernandez to risk his safety and life in shooting Garino, especially with a
possible witness in tow. If Fernandez wanted to end Garino's life, it would also be strange that he would not run after Garino
and finish the job, as Garino would certainly have been hobbled as a result of the wound.

Notably, the testimony is anchored on Garino's positive identification of Fernandez as the culprit who shot him, even though
he did not know his name at the time, and only zeroed in on Fernandez after the incident as a result of Barcenas' own
identification. In this regard, the Court finds Garino's testimony to be highly suspect, and laden with several inconsistencies
which militate against Fernandez's culpability as a suspect.

First, the condition of visibility at the time was not specified to by Garino. The incident happened after midnight, and there
was no mention that the area was illuminated sufficiently in that Garino would be able to take a good look at his assailant.
The need to take a good look at his assailant's features is indispensable and crucial, as Garino did not know who Fernandez
was, and only identified the latter based on how Garino's description of Fernandez was apparently in sync with Barcenas'
own identification. In this case, apart from Garino's own testimony, no other competent nor corroborative proof was adduced
by the prosecution that would answer the question of visibility.

Second, the Court finds as a misstep on the part of the lower courts that they did not question the circumstances or even the
identity of Garino's alleged companion during the night of the shooting. Even putting aside his non-presentation during trial
as a witness, the Court finds it baffling that Garino did not even know his name, or at least could not identify him.

Third, the Court finds it puzzling that the prosecution only presented three witnesses: Garino himself, his brother who was
not present and who only assisted in filing the complaint, and Dr. Sanchez, who testified as to Garino's severity of wounds.
The latter two were not even directly involved in the incident. While the Court is aware as to the jurisprudential
pronouncement that it is not in the realm of courts to decide the order or even the presentation of witnesses, with Garino's
testimony suffering. from infirmities, the Court finds that circumstantial evidence is necessary in order to bolster his
narration, corroborative testimony from either his unnamed companion during the shooting, or even from Barcenas herself.

Fourth, it was not shown that Fernandez had any motive for shooting Garino.

Fifth, the Court finds that the lower courts hastily brushed off Fernandez's defense of alibi, to the latter's detriment. After all,
considering the fact that the accused and the victim did not know each other and had not heard about each other prior to the
incident, with even Fernandez stating that the first time he saw Garino was during the trial, it makes complete sense that
Fernandez's flat denial that he was a participant in the offense, and his whereabouts during that time would be his only
defenses.

(Petitioner Fernando N. Fernandez is ACQUITTED of the charge of Frustrated Murder on the ground of reasonable doubt.)