Title
People vs. Mabug-at
Case
G.R. No. 25459
Decision Date
Aug 10, 1926
Ramon, jealous and armed, shot at Juana but hit her niece, Perfecta, intending to kill; court ruled frustrated murder due to intent and treachery.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 25459)

Background of the Case

Ramon Mabug-at was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros for the crime of frustrated murder. The trial court imposed a penalty of twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, required Mabug-at to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P700, and ordered him to pay the costs. The appellant challenged this judgment on two main grounds: (1) asserting that the crime committed was not frustrated murder, and (2) alleging that the trial court failed to give due consideration to the defense's evidence.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution's case established that Mabug-at and Juana Buralo were in a romantic relationship, which soured due to Juana's jealousy over Mabug-at's visits to another woman, Carmen. On August 11, 1925, despite being previously rejected by Juana, Mabug-at armed himself with a revolver and approached her while she was at a religious gathering. He attempted to summon Juana, and when thwarted, he pursued her to her residence. There, while Juana and her niece Perfecta were descending the stairs, Mabug-at shot, wounding Perfecta severely.

Defense's Argument

The defense contended that the evidence did not support a finding of intent to kill and argued that the actions demonstrated a mere discharge of a firearm resulting in injuries. It maintained that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mabug-at intended to murder Juana Buralo, and that the incident could be characterized as an accidental injury instead of a deliberate act of violence.

Court’s Analysis of Intent

The court examined the surrounding circumstances of the case to ascertain Mabug-at's intent. It emphasized the necessity of considering all facts at hand, including the act of firing a gun point-blank at individuals considered vital parts of the body. The court referenced prior rulings to illustrate that intention to kill could be inferred from the use of deadly force, particularly when directed at a critical body area.

Treachery as a Qualifying Circumstance

The court identified treachery as a pertinent factor in this case. It was underscored that the manner in which the shot was fired—aiming at Perfecta, who was unaware of the impending danger—illustrated a deliberate plan to ensure the execution of the crime while minimizing any risk of defense. The court cited relevant jurisprudence indicating that even when the shot may not have struck the

...continue reading

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