Title
Quijano vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 202151
Decision Date
Feb 10, 2021
Quijano convicted of attempted murder for shooting Andong; treachery proven, but fatal injury unconfirmed. Witnesses deemed credible, evident premeditation unproven. Penalty imposed with damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25446)

Applicable Law and Charges

Quijano was charged under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended, which defines murder and includes qualifying circumstances such as treachery and evident premeditation. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is grounded on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the case decision was rendered after 1990. The prosecution must establish not only the act of shooting but also that the wound would have been fatal without timely medical intervention, to support a conviction for frustrated murder.

Facts of the Incident

On the morning of June 21, 1997, Quijano allegedly appeared at Andong’s home, banged on the door, and called Andong’s name. When Andong got up, Quijano reportedly shot him at close range in the right shoulder. Andong’s wife pleaded for Quijano to stop. Neighbors heard the gunfire and saw Quijano with a handgun, but hid out of fear. Andong was rushed to Vicente Sotto Memorial Hospital, where he was treated surgically and confined for over two weeks.

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City convicted Quijano of frustrated murder, ruling that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the attack to be sudden and unexpected, citing the proximity of Quijano’s residence to the crime scene and rejecting his defenses of denial and alibi as physically impossible. The RTC sentenced Quijano to an indeterminate penalty corresponding to frustrated murder.

Court of Appeals Affirmation

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in 2010, giving credence to the positive identification of Quijano as the assailant. The CA admitted the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. Roque Anthony Paradela as an exception to the hearsay rule and upheld that it supported the prosecutorial case. The CA also denied Quijano’s motion for reconsideration in 2012.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Quijano challenged his conviction claiming: (1) inconsistent and incredible testimonies of prosecution witnesses; (2) inadmissible hearsay evidence from Dr. Paradela since he did not treat Andong; (3) failure of the prosecution to prove evident premeditation and treachery; (4) that the attack was neither sudden nor unexpected given the prior banging and shouting; and (5) that should conviction stand, it should be for only attempted homicide due to insufficient proof of qualifying circumstances.

Prosecution’s Position

The Office of the Solicitor General argued the issues raised involved factual determinations not subject to review under Rule 45 petitions, save for the hearsay claim concerning Dr. Paradela’s testimony. It contended that Dr. Paradela’s expert testimony was admissible and that Quijano was barred from belatedly challenging it after stipulating to the witness’s qualifications and cross-examining him.

Judicial Review and Factual Findings

The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden to prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. While Rule 45 generally restricts appellate courts from reviewing factual findings, exceptions include cases where findings are based on misapprehension of facts. The Court found that such exception applied because the RTC and CA misapprehended critical facts relating to the fatality of Andong’s wounds and the adequacy of the proof thereof.

Treachery Element Established

The Court held that Quijano’s attack was tainted with treachery because:

  • The assault occurred at the victim’s home during predawn hours;
  • Quijano used surprise, employing a sudden and rapid attack;
  • The victim had no opportunity to defend or retaliate;
  • Quijano used a firearm and flashlight to ensure success from a position of relative safety; and
  • The execution was deliberate and consciously planned to eliminate any risk to himself.

The prior banging and calling out did not negate treachery since the victim was still caught off guard and defenseless, consistent with existing jurisprudence.

Evident Premeditation Not Proven

The Court found that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove evident premeditation, the other qualifying circumstance. There was no evidence indicating the time Quijano decided to kill, no manifest act showing he clung to this determination, nor sufficient lapse of time for reflection. Alleged prior quarrel was uncorroborated and unsupported by police or barangay records. Absent clear proof, premeditation cannot be presumed.

Frustrated Murder Conviction Not Supported

The Court clarified the distinction between frustrated and attempted felonies under Article 6 of the RPC and prior rulings: frustrated murder requires that all acts of execution were performed and that the wound would have been fatal had there been no timely medical intervention. The prosecution must prove the fatal nature of the injury beyond reasonable doubt, usually relying on the testimony of the attending physician.

In this case, the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient:

  • The attending physician, Dr. Prudencio Manubag, did not testify;
  • The medical certificate alone was inadequate;
  • The only expert testimony, from Dr. Paradela, was vague, conclusory, and failed to provide detailed medical explanation regarding the fatality of the wound;
  • Dr. Paradela’s testimony did not substantiate the nature and extent of injury, nor explain the impact of medical procedures such as the closed pleural tube (CPT);
  • The critical element that Andong’s wound would have caused death without medical aid was not established with moral certainty.

Jurisprudence uniformly mandates presentation of the attending physician’s testimony to prove fatality of injuries for frustrated murder convictions. Without this, ruling must be in favor of the accused.

Evaluation of Witness Credibility and

...continue reading

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

About Privacy Terms