Title
Epifanio y Lazaro vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 157057
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2007
Petitioner stabbed victim, who survived due to timely aid; intent to kill proven, but crime classified as Attempted Murder due to interrupted execution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157057)

Background and Incident

On the evening of the incident, Crisaldo and his cousin, Allan Perez, were walking home after visiting Crisaldo's father. At approximately 9:00 PM, Crisaldo was attacked from behind and stabbed by the petitioner, resulting in injuries requiring hospitalization for three weeks. The stabbing caused a significant wound that, according to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Santiago Aquino, encompassed a stab wound in the right scapular area and a fractured rib. Legal charges were filed against the petitioner for Frustrated Murder due to the severe nature of Crisaldo's injuries, which, it was contended, could have been fatal without timely medical intervention.

Legal Proceedings

The petitioner was arraigned on June 25, 1991, pleading not guilty. His defense was primarily based on denial and an alibi claiming he was away harvesting coconuts during the time of the incident. After a trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of Frustrated Murder on July 5, 1994, sentencing him to an indeterminate imprisonment and ordering him to pay damages to the victim. The petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC's decision.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The primary issue raised by the petitioner in his appeal was whether his guilt for Frustrated Murder was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the injuries inflicted on Crisaldo were life-threatening and therefore, his conviction should be reduced to that of Attempted Murder.

Legal Standards and Definitions

The distinction between Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder comes down to the actions taken by the assailant in relation to the crime's completion. The legal framework necessitates that for Frustrated Murder, the offender must perform all acts necessary to consummate the crime, while Attempted Murder involves acts that do not reach that critical threshold of execution. In evaluating these phases, precedents such as United States v. Eduave clarify that the nature of the crime is determined not solely by the severity of the injuries but by the assailant achieving the subjective phase of the crime's execution.

Findings on Intent

The court found that the petitioner's intent to kill was established through Crisaldo's credible testimony regarding the attack and the surrounding circumstances, including the manner in which the assault was made. However, the court noted that the intervention of Allan Perez during the act of aggression prevented the petitioner from completing the execution of the crime.

Medical Evidence and its Implications

A critical element of the court's decision was the lack of testimony from the medical practitioner rega

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.