Case Summary (G.R. No. 178512)
Background and Incident
On the night of December 24, 1997, Alexander Flojo was attacked by Alfredo De Guzman, Jr. in Mandaluyong City. Initially, Alfredo struck Alexander on the nape, prompting Alexander to notify their common landlady, who apologized. Around midnight, Alexander was stabbed twice by Alfredo — wounds were inflicted on the left side of his face and upper left chest. The chest wound penetrated the thoracic wall and left lung, requiring urgent medical intervention that ultimately saved Alexander’s life. Alfredo denied stabbing Alexander, claiming the injuries resulted from a fistfight after an accidental bump.
Trial Court Findings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Alfredo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide under Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code. Alfredo was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. The court also ordered him to pay P14,170.35 in compensatory damages for actual pecuniary losses.
Grounds of Appeal
Alfredo contended that the prosecution failed to prove his intent to kill, a necessary element for frustrated homicide. He asserted that the injuries were minor abrasions from a fistfight and that he did not cause the stab wounds. Thus, he argued he should only be liable for serious physical injuries.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, holding that Alfredo’s conviction for frustrated homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The CA denied Alfredo’s motion for reconsideration.
Elements of Frustrated Homicide
The Supreme Court emphasized that to establish frustrated homicide, the prosecution must prove: (1) intent to kill; (2) the infliction of a mortal or fatal wound; and (3) absence of qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The present case involves an unqualified frustrated homicide charge.
Intent to Kill and its Proof
Intent to kill is a specific intent that must be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence and is inferred from external acts, manner of attack, and nature, location, and number of wounds. Factors considered include: the means used, wounds inflicted, conduct before and after the attack, motive, and the attendant circumstances. The Court found the use of a deadly weapon (knife) and the nature of the wounds sufficient to establish Alfredo’s intent to kill.
Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility
The Court upheld the credibility of Alexander’s testimony, noting that the victim’s positive identification of his assailant is highly trustworthy. The physical evidence—two stab wounds, one of which was potentially fatal—corroborated Alexander’s account and contradicted Alfredo’s claim that only minor injuries were inflicted during a fistfight. The presence of a serious wound requiring immediate medical intervention reinforced the finding of intent to kill.
Correction of Penalty Imposed
The Court found the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA to be erroneous. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty for frustrated homicide is prision mayor, medium period (eight years and one day to ten years). The correct indeterminate sentence is for a minimum of four years prision correccional to a maximum of eight years and one day prision mayor. The Court amended the penalty accordingly.
Civil Liability and Damages
The courts initially limited civil liability to compensatory damages amounting to actual pecuniary loss only. The Supreme Court corrected this, requiring courts to fully impose damages arising from the accused’s criminal acts unless r
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178512)
Facts of the Case
- On December 24, 1997, at around 10:00 PM, the victim Alexander Flojo was fetching water outside his rented house in Mandaluyong City when petitioner Alfredo De Guzman suddenly struck him on the nape.
- Alexander informed his landlady, Lucila Bautista (petitioner’s sister), who apologized and advised Alexander to go upstairs and rest.
- After resting, Alexander resumed fetching water around midnight; at this time, Alfredo appeared and stabbed Alexander twice: one wound on the left side of the face (zygoma), about 1 cm long, and another on the upper left chest penetrating the thoracic wall and left lung.
- These stab wounds caused significant injuries including blood-air accumulation in the thoracic cavity, necessitating a thoracostomy tube.
- Alexander was immediately brought to the hospital, confined for two days, and later transferred for further medical examination.
- The petitioner denied stabbing Alexander, claiming only a fistfight ensued wherein he hit Alexander’s cheek, causing minor bleeding.
- Trial court and Court of Appeals both convicted Alfredo for frustrated homicide based on the evidence and medical findings.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioner Alfredo De Guzman was properly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide.
- Whether the intent to kill, an essential element for frustrated homicide, was proven by the prosecution.
- Correctness of the penalty imposed and the assessment of civil liabilities.
Legal Principles on Frustrated Homicide and Intent to Kill
- Frustrated homicide requires proof of intent to kill by the offender.
- Intent to kill may be established through the overt and external acts and conduct of the accused before, during, and after the assault.
- It may also be inferred from the nature, location, and number of the wounds inflicted.
- The elements of frustrated homicide are:
- Intent to kill manifested by use of deadly weapon,
- Victim sustained fatal wounds but did not die due to timely medical aid, and
- Absence of qualifying circumstances elevating to murder.
- Intent to kill is a specific intent different from general criminal intent, and must be alleged in the information and proven by evidence.
- The Court relies on factors such as the means used, severity and placement of wounds, conduct of offender, circumstances, motive, and words uttered to determine intent to kill.
Findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts
- Both courts found the presence of intent to kill based on:
- Use of a knife by petitioner in the assault.
- Two stab wounds inflicted on Alexander, including o