G.R. No. 125498 - Rodrigo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan

On or about October 18, 1908, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the defendant, Lim San, attacked Keng Kin with a bolo.
The attack occurred at around 10 o’clock at night in a dark setting, with the only light provided by a lamp from a tienda across the street.
Keng Kin was distracted by his dog and unsuspecting of any impending danger, standing just outside the street when attacked.
The attack was sudden and without any warning, with the defendant carefully maneuvering so as not to disturb the victim’s unguarded attention until the moment of the blow.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Keng Kin, Chua Hung, and Gregorio Mariano, who unanimously identified Lim San as the attacker.
All witnesses testified that Lim San struck Keng Kin without cause or provocation by leaping at him and repeatedly attacking with a bolo.
The court noted that the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses was superior to that of the defense’s alibi witnesses, the latter being contradicted by the direct eyewitness accounts of what transpired.

The bolo struck Keng Kin with such force that the first blow drove the knife’s point into his left eye.
The injury penetrated slightly into the brain, completely destroying the left eye and leaving Keng Kin unable to defend himself.
Although the wound was severe enough to have caused death, prompt and efficient medical assistance prevented a fatal outcome.

The method of attack—surprise, deliberate planning, and the use of a deadly weapon in a dark, isolated setting—demonstrated treachery and malice.
Under the circumstances, the actions of the accused met the criteria for a crime committed with alevosia, a concept under subdivision 2 of Article 10 of the Penal Code.
The defense’s claim of an alibi was undermined by the consistent and credible testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses and the detailed nature of the assault.

The lower court convicted Lim San of the crime of attempted murder, sentencing him to seven years of presidio mayor and ordering him to pay one-third of the trial costs.
The prosecuting attorney’s information presented an apparent contradiction by characterizing the offense as attempted assassination in the caption, while the facts described in the body detailed an incident of frustrated murder (or frustrated assassination).
The case raised questions regarding the proper labeling of the crime based on the facts versus the technical designation used by the fiscal.

Whether the mischaracterization of the crime in the caption (attempted assassination) relative to the factual description (frustrated murder) is material.
If the true nature of the crime should be determined by the facts stated in the body of the information rather than by the technical label provided in the caption.

Whether the witnesses for the prosecution, who testified consistently about the sudden, unprovoked assault, should be given greater credence over the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
How the court should resolve the irreconcilable contradictions between the defense and prosecution testimonies regarding the events of the night.

Whether the defendant’s substantive rights are affected by the fiscal’s technical misnomer and if this could serve as a basis for a successful defense.
The proper role of the fiscal versus that of the court in characterizing a crime and determining its legal denomination based on the underlying factual allegations.