G.R. No. 25459 - People vs. Mabug-at

The Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros found Ramon Mabug-at guilty of frustrated murder.
The defendant was sentenced to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal.
Additional penalties included an order to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P700 and to pay the court costs.

Evidence showed that Ramon Mabug-at and Juana Buralo were sweethearts.
Juana Buralo exhibited jealousy due to the accused’s frequent visits to the house of another, Carmen.

On the afternoon of August 9, 1925, Mabug-at invited Juana for a walk, to which she initially refused by later sending him a note of excuse.
On the night of August 11, 1925, the accused proceeded to the threshold of Cirilo Banyan’s house where Juana was attending a devotion.

Upon arriving at the venue, the accused, armed with a revolver, requested that Francisco Abellon call Juana downstairs.
When Abellon refused, Mabug-at threatened: “If you do not want to go upstairs, I will get Juana and if anyone tries to defend her I will kill him.”

The accused waited until Juana Buralo, accompanied by her niece Perfecta Buralo, came downstairs and immediately followed them quietly as they headed toward their house.
Near the victim’s residence, while the two were climbing the stairs and with their backs turned, the accused fired his revolver.
The shot struck Perfecta Buralo; the bullet entered through the posterior region of her neck, passed through, and exited via her left eye—resulting in the complete destruction of that eye.
Due to prompt and proper medical attention, Perfecta Buralo did not succumb to her injuries and subsequently testified at trial.

The prosecution argued that the accused’s actions clearly evidenced his intent to kill Juana Buralo, as indicated by:

It was not sufficiently proven that the act was intended as a murder but rather amounted to a discharge of a firearm causing injuries.
The evidence allegedly failed to demonstrably prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused had an intent to kill.

Although evidence of premeditation was mentioned, the court noted that such premeditation was not conclusively established for the crime of frustrated murder in this case.
However, the presence of treachery was clearly established:

The accused employed means (firing while the victims’ backs were turned) that ensured the commission of the crime without any risk of confrontation or defense from the offended party.
This treacherous act, if his intended shot had hit Juana Buralo, would have qualified the murder.

Whether the trial court erred in holding that the crime committed by Ramon Mabug-at was frustrated murder instead of the lesser offense of discharging a firearm with injuries.

Whether the trial court improperly disregarded the evidence presented in defense, thereby failing to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the circumstances (including the act of firing point-blank at vital parts of the body, the threat issued, and the pursuit of the intended victim) sufficiently established that the accused had the intent to kill Juana Buralo.
Whether the fact that the shot injured Perfecta Buralo instead of Juana Buralo affects the attribution of criminal liability for the intended crime.