Case Summary (G.R. No. 94523)
Procedural History
• RTC Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan (Crim. Case No. L-9894): Found petitioners guilty of Frustrated Murder, sentencing them to an indeterminate term under Article 248 in relation to Article 50, and ordering solidary damages.
• Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 38307): Affirmed conviction but increased civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱50,000 each, plus 6% interest.
• Supreme Court via Rule 45 Petition: Partial grant.
Legal Issue
Whether the wound evidence supported a conviction for Frustrated Murder or only for Attempted Murder.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Guilt
- Standard of Review
• Findings of fact by trial and appellate courts are accorded great weight absent misapprehension of material facts. - Conspiracy and Abuse of Superior Strength
• Conspiracy proven by coordinated assault, each assailant performing tasks in furtherance of a common design to kill.
• Abuse of superior strength evident from numerical superiority and use of bolos against unarmed victims. - Intent to Kill
• Intent is specific and may be inferred from the nature, location, and number of wounds, the weapon used, and the attackers’ conduct before, during, and after the assault.
• Three hacks—two to the face and one to the shoulder—plus continued assault and pursuit demonstrated clear intent to kill. - Rejection of Self-Defense and Defense of Others
• Petitioners failed to establish unlawful aggression by Glenn; defense narratives were inconsistent and contradicted by physical evidence.
• Even if aggression occurred, use of bolos was not a reasonable means of repelling bare-handed force. - Mitigating Circumstance of Passion or Obfuscation
• Not shown: no lawful or sufficient provocation prior to the assault; verbal taunts do not establish passion obfuscation under Article 11.
Classification of the Offense
• Frustrated Murder requires proof that wounds were sufficient in themselves to cause death absent extraneous intervention.
• Medical testimony (Dr. Manaois) indicated that wounds “may” lead to death only by blood loss or infection without timely care—far from categorical proof of fatality.
• Doubts on fatal nature of wounds m
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 94523)
Facts
- On October 30, 2013, in Binmaley public market, petitioners Benjamin M. Oliveros, Jr., Oliver M. Oliveros, and later‐added Maximo Z. Sotto armed with bolos and superior strength attacked unarmed victims Glenn F. Apostol and his father Virgilio.
- Glenn sustained hacking wounds (9 cm on left zygomatic area, 5 cm on right shoulder) and a 3 cm laceration on the forehead; fractures and risk of blood loss, infection, or tetanus were noted by Dr. Melquiades Manaois.
- Petitioners Benjamin and Oliver were arraigned after posting bail; Maximo was joined and arrested on January 12, 2014 and likewise posted bail.
- Prosecution witnesses: Glenn Apostol (victim), Virgilio Apostol, eyewitness Irma delos Santos, and Dr. Manaois.
- Defense witnesses: petitioners Benjamin, Oliver, Maximo, and sister Mimielyn Oliveros, each giving variant accounts claiming self‐defense or defense of a relative/stranger.
Procedural History
- RTC, Branch 69, Lingayen (Nov. 16, 2015): Convicted petitioners as conspirators of frustrated murder (Art. 248, RPC, in relation to Art. 50), sentenced to indeterminate prision mayor to reclusion temporal; ordered solidary payment of actual, moral, and exemplary damages.
- CA (Jan. 31, 2018): Affirmed RTC conviction, increased damages to ₱50,000 each for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages at 6% interest.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court (Dec. 13, 2018).
Issues
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming conviction for frustrated murder?
- Were the elements of conspiracy, intent