gaboogle.com

by Atty. Gabriel Ablola 🇵🇭

Tag: Revised Penal Code Article 6

  • Is Striking Back in Self-Defense Considered Frustrated Homicide if the Injury Wasn’t Fatal?

    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.

  • When Intent to Kill is Clear: Affirming Conviction for Attempted Murder Despite Victim’s Survival

    TL;DR

    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva for attempted murder. Despite Elpidio Malicse, Sr. surviving a brutal attack involving a tomahawk and lead pipe, the Court found that the perpetrators’ actions clearly demonstrated an intent to kill, satisfying the elements of attempted murder. This case clarifies that attempted murder doesn’t require the victim’s death, but hinges on the intent of the attackers and the overt acts committed. The ruling underscores that employing excessive force and weapons in an assault, even if not ultimately fatal, can lead to a conviction for attempted murder, emphasizing the gravity of actions demonstrating a clear intention to take a life.

    Deadly Weapons, Drunken Fury: Proving Intent in a Near-Fatal Assault

    This case delves into the crucial elements of attempted murder in Philippine law, specifically focusing on the requirement of intent to kill. Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva challenged their conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove all necessary elements of attempted murder, particularly intent to kill, and questioned the evidence presented. The case arose from a violent altercation where Elpidio Malicse, Sr. sustained severe injuries but survived. The central legal question is whether the actions of Fantastico and Villanueva, even without resulting in death, sufficiently demonstrated an intent to commit murder, thus warranting a conviction for attempted murder.

    The incident began with a family dispute escalating into physical violence. Elpidio Malicse, Sr., after a confrontation and under the influence of alcohol, returned to his sister’s house to reconcile. He was met with hostility, and the situation rapidly deteriorated into a brutal assault. The court meticulously recounted the sequence of events: Elpidio was initially attacked with a rattan stick, then sprayed with an irritant, and subsequently struck multiple times with a tomahawk axe and a lead pipe by Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva, respectively, among others. The severity of the attack is underscored by the weapons used and the multiple blows inflicted, including a fracture to Elpidio’s leg caused by the tomahawk. This detail becomes crucial in assessing intent.

    The defense argued the Information was defective and challenged the presence of intent to kill and qualifying circumstances like treachery. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of attempted murder, including the crucial phrase that the accused “did not perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of murder… by reason of causes other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, the injuries inflicted upon Elpidio Malicse, Sr. y de Leon are not necessarily mortal.” The Court reiterated the elements of attempted felony as defined in Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code:

    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.

    Crucially, the Court highlighted that intent to kill is a state of mind, discernible through external manifestations. Drawing from established jurisprudence, the Court listed factors to determine intent to kill, including: the means used, the nature and location of wounds, the conduct of the assailants, and the circumstances of the crime. In Rivera v. People, the Supreme Court outlined these critical factors:

    (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, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.

    Applying these factors, the Court found overwhelming evidence of intent to kill. Fantastico and Villanueva wielded inherently dangerous weapons – a tomahawk and a lead pipe – and inflicted multiple blows to vital areas like the head and legs. The relentless nature of the attack, continuing even after Elpidio fell, further solidified the intent to cause death. While treachery was not appreciated due to the spontaneous nature of the altercation, the Court affirmed the presence of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance, given the armed attackers vastly outnumbering and overpowering the unarmed and intoxicated victim. The Court emphasized, “Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.”

    Finally, the Supreme Court rectified the penalty imposed. While affirming the conviction, it modified the indeterminate sentence to reflect the correct application of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law for attempted murder. The revised sentence became imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, along with the order to pay actual and moral damages. This adjustment ensures the penalty is proportionate to the crime of attempted murder, correcting the lower courts’ initial sentencing error.

    FAQs

    What is attempted murder? Attempted murder is the commencement of murder directly by overt acts, where the perpetrator does not complete all acts of execution due to reasons other than their own voluntary desistance. It requires intent to kill but not the actual death of the victim.
    What are the elements of attempted murder? The key elements are: commencement of felony by overt acts, non-performance of all acts of execution, lack of spontaneous desistance by the offender, and the non-completion being due to external causes.
    How is intent to kill proven in attempted murder cases? Intent to kill is inferred from the assailant’s actions, including the type of weapon used, the number and location of wounds, and the conduct of the assailant during and after the attack.
    What is abuse of superior strength? Abuse of superior strength is a qualifying circumstance where the aggressors exploit a marked advantage in numbers or weaponry over the victim, making the attack undeniably overpowering.
    Was treachery present in this case? No, the court ruled out treachery because the attack, while brutal, was deemed spontaneous and not deliberately planned to ensure its execution without risk to the attackers.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva for attempted murder but modified the penalty to be consistent with legal guidelines for attempted murder.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling? This case reinforces that even if a victim survives a violent attack, perpetrators can still be convicted of attempted murder if their actions clearly demonstrate an intent to kill, especially when using deadly weapons and employing superior strength.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Fantastico v. Malicse, G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015