Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope you can shed some light on a very stressful situation I’m in. My name is Roberto Valdez, from Cebu City. Recently, I had a very heated argument with my neighbor, Mr. Pedro Santos, about the fence separating our properties. It escalated quickly, and honestly, I felt threatened when he suddenly grabbed a bolo knife leaning against his wall and started shouting threats while gesturing aggressively towards me. He took a step forward, and I panicked.

Instinctively, I grabbed a sturdy piece of wood lying nearby and swung it to protect myself. I managed to hit his arm, the one holding the bolo, causing him to drop it. Unfortunately, it resulted in a deep gash on his forearm. We both backed off after that. He went to the barangay clinic, then the hospital, needing several stitches, but the doctor apparently said the wound wasn’t life-threatening and he was discharged the same day. I was shaken and didn’t report it to the police right away, thinking maybe things would cool down.

Now, to my shock, I received a notice that Mr. Santos filed a complaint against me for Frustrated Homicide! I’m really confused and scared. I truly believe I acted in self-defense because he came at me with a weapon. How can it be Frustrated Homicide if the injury wasn’t even close to fatal? Does my hitting him first, even in defense, automatically make me guilty? What does the law say about self-defense in this kind of situation, and how is Frustrated Homicide determined? Any guidance you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Roberto Valdez

Dear Roberto,

Thank you for reaching out. It’s completely understandable that you feel confused and anxious given the situation with Mr. Santos and the serious charge you are facing. Dealing with legal matters, especially criminal charges stemming from a confrontation, can be incredibly stressful.

Based on your account, the core legal issues revolve around the justifying circumstance of self-defense and the proper classification of the offense based on the stages of execution under the Revised Penal Code – specifically, the distinction between Attempted Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The fact that Mr. Santos’s injury was determined to be non-fatal is a very significant factor in evaluating the charge of Frustrated Homicide.

Understanding Self-Defense and the Stages of Homicide

When you admit to inflicting injury upon another person but invoke self-defense, the legal landscape shifts significantly. Normally, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, claiming self-defense constitutes an admission of the act (inflicting injury), so the responsibility, or burden of proof, transfers to you to establish the elements of self-defense clearly and convincingly.

The essential elements of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) Unlawful Aggression on the part of the victim; (2) Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is the most crucial element; without it, self-defense cannot be successfully pleaded. Based on your narration, Mr. Santos allegedly threatening you with a bolo could potentially constitute unlawful aggression.

Regarding the charge of Frustrated Homicide, Philippine law defines the stages of a felony quite distinctly. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code distinguishes between attempted and frustrated felonies:

“A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.” (Article 6, Revised Penal Code)

The critical difference lies in whether the offender performed all the acts of execution necessary to bring about the intended crime. In homicide or murder cases, this distinction often hinges on the nature of the wound inflicted.

For a crime to be classified as Frustrated Homicide, the offender must have performed all acts that could have resulted in death, but the victim survived due to factors outside the offender’s control, typically timely medical intervention. Crucially, the prosecution must prove that the wound inflicted was potentially fatal. If the wound was not mortal, the crime cannot be Frustrated Homicide.

“In frustrated [homicide], there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of attempted [homicide] and not frustrated [homicide].” (Based on principles discussed in Philippine jurisprudence regarding stages of felonies)

In your situation, the information that Mr. Santos’s arm wound was declared non-fatal by medical professionals is vital. If the injury, regardless of its appearance, would not have caused death even without medical attention, the charge of Frustrated Homicide may be incorrect. The crime might properly be classified as Attempted Homicide, where the offender intended to kill but failed to perform all the acts of execution (e.g., did not inflict a fatal wound), or possibly even only Physical Injuries, depending on the evidence of intent to kill.

When self-defense is claimed, the legal principle is clear:

“When the accused admits [inflicting injury] but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense.” (Established principle in Philippine self-defense jurisprudence)

Therefore, your defense would need to focus on two main points: first, proving the elements of self-defense (unlawful aggression from Mr. Santos, the reasonable necessity of striking his arm with wood to stop the attack, and your lack of sufficient provocation), and second, challenging the classification of the crime by highlighting that the injury inflicted was not fatal, making the charge of Frustrated Homicide legally unsustainable.

Your delay in reporting the incident might be brought up to question your claim, but it doesn’t automatically negate self-defense if the core elements can be proven. However, prompt reporting is generally advisable as it lends credibility to the claim.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Consult a Criminal Defense Lawyer Immediately: This is the most critical step. You need experienced counsel to navigate the legal process, represent you, and build your defense strategy.
• Gather All Possible Evidence: Collect anything that supports your claim of unlawful aggression. This includes names of potential witnesses, photos of the location, or even the piece of wood used if still available. Your lawyer can help assess the relevance of potential evidence.
• Document Everything: Write down a detailed chronological account of the incident while it’s fresh in your memory, including the preceding argument, the specific threats made, Mr. Santos’s actions, your reaction, and what happened immediately after.
• Obtain Medical Records (if possible): Your lawyer might need to secure Mr. Santos’s medical records from the clinic/hospital to formally establish that the wound was indeed non-fatal. This is key to challenging the Frustrated Homicide charge.
• Prepare to Prove Self-Defense Elements: Work with your lawyer to demonstrate the unlawful aggression (the bolo threat), the reasonable necessity of your response (striking the arm holding the weapon), and your lack of sufficient provocation prior to the aggression.
• Understand Potential Outcomes: Discuss with your lawyer the possible scenarios – acquittal based on self-defense, conviction for a lesser offense like Attempted Homicide or Physical Injuries if self-defense is not fully accepted but the frustrated stage is disproven, or conviction for the original charge if the prosecution prevails.
• Avoid Contact with Mr. Santos: Do not attempt to discuss the matter or settle it personally with Mr. Santos or his family, as anything you say could potentially be used against you. Let your lawyer handle communications.
• Cooperate Fully with Your Counsel: Be completely honest with your lawyer about all details, even those you think might be unfavorable. They need the full picture to provide the best possible defense.

Facing a criminal charge is daunting, Roberto, but understanding the relevant legal principles is the first step in addressing it. The distinction between frustrated and attempted homicide based on the severity of the injury, combined with your claim of self-defense, are crucial aspects that need careful legal handling.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.