Title
Penaranda vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 214426
Decision Date
Dec 2, 2021
Petitioner attacked victim with weapons in retaliation for a fare dispute; SC ruled no intent to kill, convicting him of serious physical injuries instead of attempted murder.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214426)

Procedural History

Petitioner and four others were charged by Information with frustrated murder (Information dated March 9, 2006). Petitioner pleaded not guilty and testified in his defense at trial. The RTC (Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan) convicted petitioner of attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate sentence and damages (Decision May 14, 2012). The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, maintaining an attempted murder conviction but altering the penalty and damage awards (Decision September 26, 2014). Petitioner filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition and modified the conviction to serious physical injuries, with corresponding penalty and damages (Supreme Court decision December 2, 2021).

Issue Presented

Whether petitioner is guilty of the crime of attempted murder as found by the RTC and CA, or whether the facts and law warrant a different characterization and penalty.

Standard of Review

The Supreme Court acknowledges the general rule that factual questions are not ordinarily reviewed in a Rule 45 petition. However, where an assailed judgment rests on a misapprehension of facts, the Court may entertain and resolve factual issues. The Court therefore reviewed both legal and factual determinations relevant to characterizing the offense.

Legal Framework — Distinguishing Frustrated/Attempted Murder and Physical Injuries

The Court applied established tests for differentiating frustrated or attempted homicide/murder from physical injuries: (1) whether the injury sustained was fatal or would have been fatal absent medical intervention; and (2) whether there existed a clear and evident intent to kill. The Court also applied Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code concerning attempted felony, which requires inter alia that the offender commenced the felony by overt acts and that the non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause other than the offender’s spontaneous desistance.

Analysis — Whether Injury Was Fatal

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that Gutierrez’s wounds were fatal or would have been fatal without medical assistance. Where nothing in the evidence shows fatality absent intervention, the character of the wound is doubtful and such doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. Because the record did not establish that the wounds were mortal, the case could not be sustained as frustrated murder; it remained either attempted murder (if intent existed) or an offense for physical injuries.

Analysis — Whether There Was Intent to Kill

The Court concluded that the elements of intent to kill were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although the assailants were armed with a samurai and steel pipes, the Court emphasized that intent to kill is a mental state to be inferred from external manifestations (means used, nature/location/number of wounds, conduct before/during/after the assault, and surrounding circumstances). The Court found that after inflicting wounds, the aggressors immediately ceased the attack and fled — they did not pursue further acts that would have ensured death, and the victim was able to go to the barangay and seek assistance unpursued. These facts supported the inference that the assailants did not exhibit a clear homicidal intent; accordingly, the required clear and evident proof of intent to kill was lacking.

Analysis — Attempted Felony and Spontaneous Desistance

Even assuming arguendo an intent to kill, the Court held that the elements of attempted felony were not satisfied because the assailants’ conduct constituted spontaneous desistance. Under Article 6 RPC and controlling jurisprudence, an attempted felony requires that the offender be prevented from completing the crime by an external cause; if the offender voluntarily desists, there is no attempted felony. The Court found that petitioner and his companions voluntarily stopped and fled without being forced to desist by external impediment; thus the attempted murder characterization could not stand. The spontaneous desistance doctrine, however, does not relieve them of liability for the unlawful acts already committed.

Recharacterization to Serious Physical Injuries

Because intent to kill was not established and attempted murder could not be sustained, the Supreme Court recharacterized the offense to serious physical injuries under Article 263(4) of the Revised Penal Code (injuries causing incapacity for labor of more than thirty days). The Court relied on medical evidence in the record showing multiple hack wounds that required over thirty days to heal. The Court noted that the offense of serious physical injuries is necessarily included within the charge of frustrated murder and thus may be adjudicated in the prosecution for the higher offense.

Conspiracy, Treachery, and Abuse of Superior Strength

The Court found conspiracy established by the factual matrix: Ivan summoned the group; petitioner threw a stone; Raul induced Gutierrez to put down his steel pipe; Edwin alighted and hacked with a samurai; the group successively assaulted Gutierrez and fled; one assailant threw the steel pipe that hit Gutierrez while fleeing. These acts manifested unity of action and a common plan, making each conspirator criminally liable for the acts. The Court rejected treachery as an aggravating circumstance because Gutierrez had a weapon and was forewarned of hostility, so the attack was not sudden and unexpected in the sense required for treachery. The Court, however, found abuse of superior strength present: the numerical su

...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