Title
Etino vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 206632
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2018
Petitioner Eden Etino shot Jessierel Leyble, causing serious injuries. Despite claims of alibi and lack of intent to kill, Etino was convicted of serious physical injuries, not frustrated homicide, due to insufficient proof of fatal injuries or intent. Damages were awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206632)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Incident: November 5, 2001.
Information filed: June 19, 2003.
Arraignment and plea: petitioner pleaded not guilty; trial followed.
RTC Decision: January 14, 2008 (convicted of frustrated homicide).
CA Decision: August 29, 2012 (affirmed with modification awarding moral and temperate damages).
CA Resolution denying reconsideration: March 11, 2013.
Supreme Court review: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Antecedent Facts

The Information charged petitioner with frustrated homicide for allegedly shooting Jessierel Leyble on November 5, 2001, with an unlicensed firearm, performing all acts of execution that would produce homicide but failing to cause death due to timely medical attendance. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.

Prosecution Evidence

Principal prosecution witnesses were the victim Leyble, companion Isidro Maldecir, and Nida Sonza, the WVSUMC records officer who produced Leyble’s medical records in compliance with a subpoena duces tecum. Leyble testified that petitioner shot him at about 4:30 p.m. on the date in question with a 12-gauge shotgun, causing gunshot wounds on the back portion of his right shoulder and other parts of his body. Maldecir corroborated that Leyble was shot from behind and then taken to Don Benito Lopez Memorial Hospital (now WVSUMC). Sonza certified and presented the medical records, including a Medical Certificate, Trauma Sheet, Admission and Discharge Record, and Operative Records.

Defense Evidence

The defense presented the testimony of Bautista Etino, Wenifred Besares, Joeseryl Masiado and petitioner to establish an alibi. They testified that petitioner was at Bautista Etino’s house with others at about 4:30 p.m., about one kilometer from where the shots were heard. The defense also suggested that Leyble had a motive to file the complaint because petitioner had testified against him in a prior Comelec gun-ban case.

RTC Ruling

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide, giving full weight to the prosecution testimonies and the victim’s positive identification. The RTC sentenced petitioner to imprisonment ranging from two years, four months and one day (prision correccional, minimum) to eight years and one day (prision mayor, maximum). The RTC did not award civil damages, finding the prosecution failed to present evidence on the civil aspect.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s factual findings but modified the judgment to award Leyble moral damages of P25,000.00 and temperate damages of P10,000.00. The CA sustained the trial court’s credibility assessment of prosecution witnesses, accepted the positive identification, rejected the argument that delay in filing undermined credibility (fear of reprisal explained the delay), and held that any grudge or motive did not automatically render Leyble’s testimony unreliable. The CA awarded damages on the basis of the victim’s testimony and medical records indicating hospitalization and treatment, despite the absence of documentary proof of medical expenses.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the CA erred in sustaining conviction for frustrated homicide given the absence of the treating physician’s testimony.
  2. Whether the CA erred in finding petitioner’s and defense witnesses’ testimonies incredible.
  3. Whether the CA erred in disregarding petitioner’s defenses: delay in filing, alleged failure of positive identification, and alleged motive of the victim.

Standard of Review and Scope of Rule 45

The Supreme Court noted that, as a rule, questions of fact are not ordinarily entertained in Rule 45 petitions, which are limited to errors of law. However, where a judgment is allegedly based on a misapprehension of facts or contains conclusions without citation of specific evidence, the Court may probe factual findings. The Court proceeded to examine factual and legal issues where the lower courts’ findings required assessment.

Legal Standards on Stages of Felony and Distinguishing Homicide from Physical Injuries

The Court cited Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defining consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies, and jurisprudence distinguishing frustrated from attempted felonies. The decision reiterated established principles: where an accused manifests intent to kill through the use of a deadly weapon and the victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die due to timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated homicide (or frustrated murder if qualifying circumstances exist). If wounds are not fatal or the intent to kill is lacking, the offense may be attempted homicide or merely physical injuries depending on the severity.

Proof of the Extent of Injury and the Weight of the Medical Certificate

The Court held that the prosecution failed to present adequate proof that Leyble’s wounds would have been fatal absent medical treatment. The Medical Certificate, standing alone and without the testimony of the physician who diagnosed and treated the victim, was insufficient to establish the fatal nature or extent of the wounds. The Court emphasized the distinction between admissibility and probative value: because the Medical Certificate contains the treating physician’s opinions, the physician should have been presented to show qualifications and to give those opinions probative weight. In absence of such proof, doubt as to the character of the wounds must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Proof of Intent to Kill (Animus Interficendi)

The Court examined whether animus interficendi was established beyond reasonable doubt. Although petitioner fired a 12-gauge shotgun at Leyble, the record lacked other evidence proving intent to kill: no testimony that petitioner specifically aimed to kill; only a single shot was fired at close range, and wounds were non-vital (right deltoid and left shoulder per Medical Certificate). Petitioner fled immediately after firing. The Court reiterated that intent to kill cannot be inferred automatically from use of a firearm; such specific intent must be proven with the same degree of certainty required for other elements. Given the evidence, the Court found no sufficient proof of intent to kill.

Recharacterization to Serious Physical Injuries

Because the prosecution did not prove that the wounds were fatal or that the accused had intent to kill, but did establish that wounds were inflicted and that Leyble’s incapacity and healing period amounted to more than thirty days (hospital confinement from November 5 to 25, 2001, and healing period of two to four weeks), the Court concluded the proper crime was serious physical injuries under Article 263(4) of the Revised Penal Code, not frustrated homicide.

Assessment of Identification, Delay, Alibi, and Motive Defenses

The Court rejected petitioner’s claims that he was not identified, that delay in filing generated doubt, and that Leyble’s motive rendered his testimony unreliable. The police blotter contained a report where the victim identified petitioner and companions as assailants. The victim’s in-court identification was positive and corroborated by circumsta

...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