Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83898:58631&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:55:55+00:00

Document:
ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Frustrated homicide requires intent to kill on the part of the offender. Without proof of such intent, the felony may only be serious physical injuries. Intent to kill may be established through the overt and external acts and conduct of the offender before, during and after the assault, or by the nature, location and number of the wounds inflicted on the victim.
x x x [O]n December 24, 1997, at about ten o’clock in the evening, Alexander Flojo (hereafter “Alexander”) was fetching water below his rented house at 443 Aglipay Street, Old Zaniga St., Mandaluyong City when suddenly Alfredo De Guzman (hereafter “Alfredo”), the brother of his land lady, Lucila Bautista (hereafter “Lucila”), hit him on the nape. Alexander informed Lucila about what Alfredo did to him. Lucila apologized to Alexander by saying, “Pasensya ka na Mang Alex” and told the latter to just go up. Alexander obliged and went upstairs. He took a rest for about two hours. Thereafter, at around 12:00 to 12:15 A.M., Alexander went down and continued to fetch water. While pouring water into a container, Alfredo suddenly appeared in front of Alexander and stabbed him on his left face and chest.
Cirilino Bantaya, a son-in-law of Alexander, saw the latter bleeding on the left portion of his body and begging for help. Alexander then told Cirilino that Alfredo stabbed him. Cirilino immediately loaded Alexander into his motorcycle (backride) and brought him to the Mandaluyong City Medical Center. Upon arrival at the hospital, the doctors immediately rendered medical assistance to Alexander. Alexander stayed in the emergency room of said hospital for about 30 to 40 minutes. Then, he was brought to the second floor of the said hospital where he was confined for two days. Thereafter, Alexander was transferred to the Polymedic General Hospital where he was subjected for (sic) further medical examination.
Alexander sustained two stabbed (sic) wounds. (sic) One of which was on the zygoma, left side, and about one (1) cm. long. The other is on his upper left chest which penetrated the fourth intercostal space at the proximal clavicular line measuring about two (2) cm. The second stabbed (sic) wound penetrated the thoracic wall and left lung of the victim which resulted to blood air (sic) in the thoracic cavity thus necessitating the insertion of a thoracostomy tube to remove the blood. According to Dr. Francisco Obmerga, the physician who treated the victim at the Mandaluyong City Medical Center, the second wound was fatal and could have caused Alexander’s death without timely medical intervention. (Tsn, July 8, 1998, p.8).
PRESCINDING (sic) FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the court finds accused Alfredo De Guzman y Agkis a.k.a., “JUNIOR,” guilty beyond reasonable doubt for (sic) the crime of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE defined and penalized in Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code and in the absence of any modifying circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Months and One (1) day of PRISION CORR[R]ECCIONAL as MINIMUM to Six (6) Years and One (1) day of PRISION MAYOR as MAXIMUM.
The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant compensatory damages in the amount of P14,170.35 representing the actual pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proven.
On appeal, the petitioner contended that his guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt; that intent to kill, the critical element of the crime charged, was not established; that the injuries sustained by Alexander were mere scuffmarks inflicted in the heat of anger during the fistfight between them; that he did not inflict the stab wounds, insisting that another person could have inflicted such wounds; and that he had caused only slight physical injuries on Alexander, for which he should be accordingly found guilty.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The September 10, 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Was the petitioner properly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide?
The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present.7 Inasmuch as the trial and appellate courts found none of the qualifying circumstances in murder under Article 248 to be present, we immediately proceed to ascertain the presence of the two other elements.
The petitioner adamantly denies that intent to kill was present during the fistfight between him and Alexander. He claims that the heightened emotions during the fistfight naturally emboldened both of them, but he maintains that he only inflicted minor abrasions on Alexander, not the stab wounds that he appeared to have sustained. Hence, he should be held liable only for serious physical injuries because the intent to kill, the necessary element to characterize the crime as homicide, was not sufficiently established. He avers that such intent to kill is the main element that distinguishes the crime of physical injuries from the crime of homicide; and that the crime is homicide only if the intent to kill is competently shown.
Here, both the trial and the appellate court agreed that intent to kill was present. We concur with them. Contrary to the petitioner’s submission, the wounds sustained by Alexander were not mere scuffmarks inflicted in the heat of anger or as the result of a fistfight between them. The petitioner wielded and used a knife in his assault on Alexander. The medical records indicate, indeed, that Alexander sustained two stab wounds, specifically, one on his upper left chest and the other on the left side of his face. The petitioner’s attack was unprovoked with the knife used therein causing such wounds, thereby belying his submission, and firmly proving the presence of intent to kill. There is also to be no doubt about the wound on Alexander’s chest being sufficient to result into his death were it not for the timely medical intervention.
With the State having thereby shown that the petitioner already performed all the acts of execution that should produce the felony of homicide as a consequence, but did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, i.e., the timely medical attention accorded to Alexander, he was properly found guilty of frustrated homicide.
We have no cogent reason to deviate from or to disregard the findings of the trial and appellate courts on the credibility of Alexander’s testimony. It is not disputed that the testimony of a single but credible and trustworthy witness sufficed to support the conviction of the petitioner. This guideline finds more compelling application when the lone witness is the victim himself whose direct and positive identification of his assailant is almost always regarded with indubitable credibility, owing to the natural tendency of the victim to seek justice for himself, and thus strive to remember the face of his assailant and to recall the manner in which the latter committed the crime.11 Moreover, it is significant that the petitioner’s mere denial of the deadly manner of his attack was contradicted by the credible physical evidence corroborating Alexander’s statements. Under the circumstances, we can only affirm the petitioner’s conviction for frustrated homicide.
The affirmance of the conviction notwithstanding, we find the indeterminate penalty of “Six (6) Months and One (1) day of PRISION CORR[R]ECCIONAL as MINIMUM to Six (6) Years and One (1) day of PRISION MAYOR as MAXIMUM”12 fixed by the RTC erroneous despite the CA concurring with the trial court thereon. Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, an indeterminate sentence is imposed on the offender consisting of a maximum term and a minimum term.13 The maximum term is the penalty properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code after considering any attending modifying circumstances; while the minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense committed. Conformably with Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code,14 frustrated homicide is punished by prision mayor, which is next lower to reclusion temporal, the penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present, however, prision mayor in its medium period – from eight years and one day to 10 years – is proper. As can be seen, the maximum of six years and one day of prision mayor as fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA was not within the medium period of prision mayor. Accordingly, the correct indeterminate sentence is four years of prision correccional, as the minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as the maximum.
Alexander as the victim in frustrated homicide suffered moral injuries because the offender committed violence that nearly took away the victim’s life. “Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.”18 Indeed, Article 2219, (1), of the Civil Code expressly recognizes the right of the victim in crimes resulting in physical injuries.19 Towards that end, the Court, upon its appreciation of the records, decrees that P30,000.00 is a reasonable award of moral damages.20 In addition, AAA was entitled to recover civil indemnity of P30,000.00.21 Both of these awards did not require allegation and proof.
In addition, the amounts awarded as civil liability of the petitioner shall earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until full payment by the accused.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on September 27, 2006 finding petitioner Alfredo De Guzman, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE, and SENTENCES him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four years of prision correccional, as the minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as the maximum; ORDERS the petitioner to pay to Alexander Flojo civil indemnity of P30,000.00; moral damages of P30,000.00; and compensatory damages of P14,170.35, plus interest of 6% per annum on all such awards from the finality of this decision until full payment; and DIRECTS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Sereno, Chief Justice, Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr.,* and Perez, JJ., concur.
1Rollo, pp 74-79; penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (now a Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon.
2 Id. at 29-35; penned by Presiding Judge Amalia F. Dy.
7 Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 322, 339.
8Mahawan v. People, G.R. No. 176609, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 737; Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 188, 196.
9Rivera v. People, supra at 197, citing People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 386, 400.
10Serrano v. People, supra note 7, at 335-336.
11Cabildo v. People, G.R. No. 189971, August 23, 2010, 628 SCRA 602, 609.
13 Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
14 Article 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
16 G.R. No. 206236, July 15, 2013, 701 SCRA 229.
17 Id. at 239-240 (the bold underscoring is part of the original text).
18 Article 2217, Civil Code.
20Nacario v. People, G.R. No. 173106, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 262, 268; Angeles v. People, G.R. No. 172744, September 29, 2008, G.R. No. 172744, 567 SCRA 20, 30; Adame v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139830, November 21, 2002, 392 SCRA 305, 316.
21Flores v. People, G.R. No. 181625, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 611, 626.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.