G.R. No. 7721 - Inchausti and Co. vs. Yulo

Beethoven Quijano (Petitioner) was charged with frustrated murder per an Information dated September 2, 1997, for shooting Atilano Andong.
The shooting occurred at around 3:30 a.m. on June 21, 1997, at Andong’s residence in Cebu City.
Quijano allegedly attacked Andong with treachery and evident premeditation using a handgun, shooting Andong on the right shoulder.
The wound was claimed to be potentially fatal but Andong survived due to timely medical intervention.

Andong was sleeping with his family when Quijano banged on their door and called his name, then suddenly shot him at close range.
Neighbors heard the gunshot and saw Quijano holding a handgun.
Andong was rushed to Vicente Sotto Memorial Hospital and confined for over two weeks after surgery.
Dr. Roque Anthony Paradela, an expert witness, testified that the injury could have been fatal without timely medical procedures such as the application of a closed tube drainage (CPT).
Quijano pleaded not guilty, asserting an alibi that he was drinking with co-workers at home prior to and during the early hours of the incident.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Quijano of frustrated murder on April 26, 2005, finding that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, including the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision on August 27, 2010, and upheld the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the admissibility of Dr. Paradela’s expert testimony under the hearsay exception.
Quijano’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on May 10, 2012.

The prosecution witnesses’ testimonies are inconsistent and incredible.
Dr. Paradela’s testimony is hearsay and insufficient.
Failure to prove evident premeditation and treachery.
If guilty, the offense should be reduced to attempted or frustrated homicide due to lack of proving qualifying circumstances.

The People argued that these are factual issues not proper for review under Rule 45 and maintained the expert testimony’s admissibility and sufficiency.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of frustrated murder, particularly:

The existence of treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying circumstances.
That the injury inflicted upon Andong would have been fatal without timely medical intervention.

Whether Quijano is guilty of frustrated murder or a lesser offense such as attempted murder.
Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the expert’s opinion were credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction.