Title
Escamilla y Jugo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 188551
Decision Date
Feb 27, 2013
Petitioner convicted of frustrated homicide after eyewitnesses positively identified him as the shooter; alibi defense rejected due to lack of physical impossibility and credible corroboration.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188551)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Offense: approximately 2:00 a.m., August 1, 1999. Information filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila: December 1, 1999 (charge: frustrated homicide). Arraignment: petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial testimony and proceedings occurred between 2000–2004 (transcripts cited). Trial court conviction and sentence (RTC) were promulgated and appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the conviction; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is after 1990, so the 1987 Constitution is applicable). Penal law: Revised Penal Code (Information cites Articles 249 and 50 [sic] as the statutory basis for the charge of frustrated homicide). Evidentiary and jurisprudential authorities relied upon in the courts’ reasoning include prior Supreme Court decisions cited in the record (e.g., Anilao v. People; Mahawan v. People; People v. Erguiza; People v. Lucas; Esqueda v. People).

Facts Established at Trial

Around 2:00 a.m. on August 1, 1999, while Mendol was about to ride his tricycle at the corner of Estrada and Arellano Streets, petitioner—standing in front of his store located near that intersection—allegedly fired a .9mm Tekarev pistol at Mendol four times, striking him once in the upper right chest. Mendol was immediately transported to Ospital ng Makati for treatment; timely medical attention prevented his death. A sketch of the crime scene, medical certificate, and receipts for medical expenses were introduced by the prosecution. The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses who positively identified petitioner as the shooter.

Charge, Plea and Trial Evidence

Charge: frustrated homicide for performing all acts of execution which should have produced homicide but failing due to causes independent of his will (timely medical assistance). Plea: not guilty. Prosecution evidence: testimonies of Mendol, Velasco, and Garcelazo (all positively identifying petitioner), and the attending physician; documentary proof including crime-scene sketch, medical certificate, and medical expense receipts. Defense evidence: petitioner’s testimony, his wife’s testimony, Barangay tanod Asumbrado’s testimony, paraffin test results offered by the defense (negative result), and transcript of stenographic notes of the court-ordered ocular inspection. The trial court granted an ocular inspection requested by the defense.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The Regional Trial Court gave greater weight to the credible, positive testimonies of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses over the defense’s alibi, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide. Sentence: indeterminate term with minimum of six months and one day of prision correccional and maximum of eight years and one day of prision mayor; indemnity (actual damages P34,305.16) and moral damages (P30,000.00) awarded to the victim.

Court of Appeals’ Disposition

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s findings. The CA emphasized that assessment of witness credibility is primarily within the trial court’s province because it is better positioned to observe witness demeanor. The CA found the victim’s positive and unequivocal identification of petitioner to be dispositive and held that the negative paraffin test was not conclusive and is of little import when there is positive identification by witnesses. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the prosecution established petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2) Whether a defense of alibi, when corroborated by a disinterested party, can overcome the positive identification by three witnesses.

Supreme Court Holding

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision in toto. The Court held that the prosecution proved petitioner’s identity and intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt and that the defense of alibi was not established by clear and convincing evidence to overcome positive identification.

Reasoning on Identity and Witness Credibility

The Court reiterated controlling principles: categorical and consistently positive identification of an accused by eyewitnesses, without proof of ill motive or substantial discrepancies, prevails over denial or defensive claims. All three prosecution witnesses gave positive and consistent accounts identifying petitioner as the shooter; their testimony placed petitioner facing Arellano Street at the locus criminis, with a proximate and unobstructed front view. Although the incident occurred in the early morning, the presence of a street lamp five meters from petitioner’s position permitted clear observation. The witnesses were familiar with petitioner because of his store, further supporting reliable identification. Given these circumstances, identity was established with moral certainty.

Reasoning on Intent to Kill

The Court applied established tests for proving intent to kill: the means used, the nature, location and number of wounds, and the assailant’s conduct before, during, and immediately after the attack. Petitioner fired a firearm and discharged multiple shots; one shot hit the victim in the chest. Petitioner continued to shoot even after the victim had been struck and while the victim attempted to escape—conduct probative of intent to kill. The attending physician’s testimony that the victim would have died absent immediate medical treatment underscored the gravity of the wound and corroborated the lethal quality of the assault, supporting the prosecution’s proof of intent to kill.

Reasoning on Alibi and Physical Impossibility

The Court applied the standard that a defendant asserting alibi must, by clear and convincing evidence, establish (1) that he was in another place at the time of the offense and (2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Petitioner’s alibi—that he was asleep at home with his wife when the shooting occurred—failed both prongs.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms