Case Digest (G.R. No. 163331)
Facts:
Petitioner Arellano Novicio was charged with Frustrated Homicide in an Information dated December 11, 1998 for shooting private complainant Mario Mercado on September 24, 1998 in Bacong, San Luis, Aurora, sustaining a gunshot wound from the right pubic area to the left gluteus. Petitioner voluntarily surrendered, posted bail of P24,000.00, was arraigned on January 29, 1999 and pleaded not guilty, and trial ensued.
The prosecution presented the victim and other witnesses who stated that petitioner sat with the group, drew a gun, warned Mario not to stand, then shot him; Mario later hid in a room, and a relative forcibly opened it while aiming a gun. Petitioner denied the aggression, claiming the gun went off during a grappling incident while Mario allegedly aimed and threatened him; he also insisted his relatives did not assist him after the incident. The RTC found the prosecution version credible and convicted petitioner of Frustrated Homicide, while the CA affirmed the conviction in toto.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner proved self-defense.
- Whether petitioner acted with intent to kill so as to warrant conviction for Frustrated Homicide.
Ruling:
The Court denied the petition, holding that petitioner failed to prove the elements of self-defense, particularly because unlawful aggression was not established. The Court sustained the RTC and CA credibility findings that favored the prosecution.
On intent to kill, the Court ruled that intent may be inferred from circumstances such as the use of a gun, the nature and location of the wound, and the victim’s medical condition requiring transfer; thus, the conviction for Frustrated Homicide was proper despite the existence of only one gunshot wound.
Ratio:
On self-defense, the Court treated the issue as factual and accorded high respect to the trial court’s and the appellate court’s assessment of witness credibility. It found material inconsistencies in petitioner’s version, and it found it contrary to human experience that petitioner’s relatives would not aid him if Mario had allegedly assaulted him with a gun. Since the first requisite—unlawful aggression—was absent, self-defense could not prosper.
On intent to kill, the Court applied the rule that intent to kill is a specific intent that may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence, including the means used, the nature and location of the wound, and surrounding conduct. It held that a lone gunshot wound does not automatically negate intent to kill, especially where the firearm was used, the wound could be fatal if untreated, and the victim required transfer for proper medical care. Hence, the last act necessary to cause death would have been performed but for timely medical attention, consistent with frustrated homicide.
Doctrine:
- Self-defense requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means used, and lack of sufficient provocation, and failure to prove any element defeats the defense.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)