Kailan masasabing frustrated homicide ang kaso?

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | August 23, 2022

Dear Chief Acosta,

Ang aking pamangkin ay nakasuhan ng Frustrated Homicide dahil sa mga sugat na naidulot nito sa kanyang nakaaway. Ito ay sa kabila na buhay naman ang biktima. Pagkatapos ng paglilitis ay nahatulan siya ng hukuman ng Frustrated Homicide at hindi ng Serious Physical Injuries sapagkat ang elemento ng “intent to kill” diumano ay napatunayan. Tama ba ito? - Stephanie

Dear Stephanie,

Ang iyong katanungan ay sinagot ng Korte Suprema sa kaso ng Alfred De Guzman, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178512, Nov. 26, 2014, na isinulat ni Kagalang-galang na Dating Punong Mahistrado Lucas P. Bersamin, kung saan sinabi kung ano ang pagkakaiba ng Serious Physical Injuries at Frustrated Homicide. Ayon sa Korte Suprema:

“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 characterise 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.

The essential element in frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent that the State must allege in the information, and then prove by either direct or circumstantial evidence, as differentiated from a general criminal intent, which is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo. Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts only through external manifestations, i.e., the acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. In Rivera v. People, we considered the following factors to determine the presence of intent to kill, namely: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. We have also considered as determinative factors the motive of the offender and the words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries on the victim.”

Sang-ayon sa nasabing desisyon, ang pagkakaiba ng Serious Physical Injuries at Frustrated Homicide ay naka-depende sa presensya ng “intent to kill.” Ayon sa Korte Suprema, maaaring matiyak ang presensya ng “intent to kill” sa pamamagitan ng (1) pamamaraan na ginamit ng akusado; (2) uri, lokasyon at bilang ng sugat na natamo ng biktima; (3) pag-uugali ng akusado bago, habang, at matapos ang krimen; at (4) konteksto ng pagkakaganap ng krimen at motibo ng akusado. Gaya sa kaso ng iyong pamangkin, maaaring may mga ebidensyang naipresenta ang prosekusyon na nakapagpatibay ng presensya ng “intent to kill” kaya siya ay nahatulan ng Frustrated Homicide. Kaugnay nito, dapat kilatisin kung ano ang mga sugat na natamo ng kaaway ng iyong pamangkin at paano niya ito natamo.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.