Epifanio v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of August 15, 1990, Crisaldo Alberto was walking home when he was suddenly stabbed from behind by Leonidas Epifanio y Lazaro. Alberto cried out in pain and saw his attacker. Epifanio then stabbed Alberto again, hitting his left arm as he attempted to defend himself. Allan Perez, Alberto's cousin, heard the commotion and rushed to Alberto's side, confronting Epifanio, who then fled the scene. Alberto sustained wounds requiring three weeks of hospitalization and medical attention. Procedural History: Following the incident, Leonidas Epifanio y Lazaro was charged with Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 91-15. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo, Davao, rendered a decision on July 5, 1994, finding Epifanio guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to an indeterminate imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, and to pay damages. Epifanio appealed this conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision in its entirety on May 22, 2002. His subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA on January 14, 2003. The Petition: Epifanio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking a modification of his conviction. The sole issue raised was whether his guilt for Frustrated Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Epifanio argued that the injuries sustained by the victim were not life-threatening, as indicated by the medical certificate's prognosis of 15-30 days healing time, and thus the crime should be considered attempted murder, not frustrated murder. He contended that the prosecution failed to present testimonial evidence proving the wounds were fatal without medical intervention.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of Frustrated Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner was found guilty of Attempted Murder and sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as minimum, and 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum. He was also ordered to indemnify Crisaldo Alberto the sum of P6,000.00 as temperate damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is guilty of Attempted Murder, not Frustrated Murder. The Court first addressed the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) contention that the non-presentation of the doctor was not raised in the RTC, affirming the well-settled rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review, allowing the reviewing tribunal to correct errors unassigned in the appealed judgment, even if not raised below. The Court then clarified the distinction between an attempted and frustrated felony, citing United States v. Eduave, which defines an attempted crime as one where the offender is thwarted by a foreign force before performing all acts which should produce the crime. A crime is frustrated, conversely, when the offender has performed all acts of execution which should result in consummation, but the crime is not consummated due to independent causes. In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause death barring medical intervention. The Court found intent to kill present due to the treacherous manner of the attack and the number of wounds, as Crisaldo was stabbed from behind and then again as he defended himself. However, petitioner failed to perform all the acts of execution because Allan intervened, forcing the petitioner to flee, thus interrupting the subjective phase of the crime. Moreover, crucial for the distinction, the prosecution failed to present testimonial evidence on the nature of Crisaldo's wounds, specifically whether they were mortal or life-threatening without timely medical attendance. The medical certificate only indicated healing time, not mortality. Citing People v. Matyaong, the Court underscored the importance of ascertaining the degree of injury, including danger to life. Absent evidence proving the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful. In such cases, citing People v. Costales and People v. De la Cruz, doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, and the crime committed should be declared as attempted, not frustrated, murder. As for damages, while actual expenses of P853.50 were proven, the Court awarded P6,000.00 as temperate damages, acknowledging expenses incurred during Crisaldo's three-week hospitalization, which could not be proven with certainty but were undeniably sustained.
Main Doctrine
The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or attempted hinges not solely on the gravity of the wounds but on whether the offender has passed the subjective phase of the commission of the crime. If the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should result in the consummation of the crime, but it is not consummated due to causes independent of the offender's will, the crime is frustrated. However, if the prosecution fails to present evidence that the wounds inflicted were mortal or would have caused death without timely medical attendance, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused, and the crime may be declared as attempted, not frustrated, murder.