Fantastico v. Malicse
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 27, 1993, Elpidio Malicse, Sr. (Elpidio) was involved in a commotion outside his sister Isabelita's house. After an initial altercation and an attempt at reconciliation, Elpidio returned to Isabelita's house. Upon kicking the door open, he was hit by Salvador Iguiron with a rattan stick. Gary Fantastico then hit Elpidio with a tomahawk axe. Rolando Villanueva hit Elpidio from behind with a lead pipe, causing him to fall. While Elpidio was on the ground, Salvador continued to hit him with the rattan stick, and Gary hit his legs with the tomahawk axe, causing fractures. Other individuals were also alleged to have participated in the mauling. Procedural History: A case for Attempted Murder was filed against several individuals, including Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva. The trial court found Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Attempted Murder and sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty. Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron, and Tommy Ballesteros were acquitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA decision and resolution. They argued that the CA and RTC erred in their conclusions, that the Information was defective for not alleging all elements of attempted murder, that there was no treachery, that mitigating circumstances were not considered, and that their conviction was based on the weakness of the defense and uncorroborated testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether the Information was sufficient for attempted murder. Whether the elements of attempted murder were sufficiently proven. Whether treachery was present. Whether abuse of superior strength was present. Whether the penalty imposed was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification as to the penalty imposed. The petitioners Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva were found guilty of attempted murder.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the Information: The Court held that the Information was sufficient for attempted murder. The Information alleged that the accused commenced the commission of murder directly by overt acts, but did not perform all acts of execution which should have produced murder, due to causes other than their spontaneous desistance, specifically noting that the injuries were not necessarily mortal. This aligns with the definition of attempt under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires overt acts commencing the commission of the felony and the non-performance of all acts of execution due to causes other than spontaneous desistance. The Court also noted that it was too late to assail the sufficiency of the Information after the petitioners had pleaded to the charges, as such objections are deemed waived under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, except for specific grounds not raised here. On the elements of attempted murder and intent to kill: The Court found that the elements of attempted murder were sufficiently proven. The petitioners commenced the commission of the felony through overt acts, such as hitting the victim with a tomahawk axe and a lead pipe. They did not perform all the acts of execution that would have resulted in murder, and the failure to do so was due to causes other than their spontaneous desistance. The Court reiterated that intent to kill, a state of mind, is discerned through external manifestations like the means used, nature and location of wounds, conduct of the malefactors, and circumstances of the crime. The testimony of the victim, Elpidio, positively identified the petitioners as assailants, and this was corroborated by medico-legal findings of bilateral leg fractures and multiple lacerations, consistent with blunt and hacking injuries. The Court gave great weight to the positive identification by the victim over the denials of the accused, citing the principle that mere denials are self-serving. On the presence of treachery: The Court ruled that treachery was not present in this case. Treachery requires the employment of means, methods, or forms that tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender, and that the attack comes without warning, affording the victim no chance to defend or retaliate. The Court found that the incident was spontaneous and triggered by sudden infatuation, negating the element of conscious and deliberate adoption of means to execute the crime. The attack was not preconceived, thus the second element of treachery, which requires deliberate adoption of means, was wanting. On the presence of abuse of superior strength: The Court affirmed the RTC's appreciation of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance. The prosecution established that the victim was unarmed and inebriated, while the assailants were armed with a rattan stick, a tomahawk axe, and a lead pipe. The victim was outnumbered and subjected to a lopsided attack, with multiple blows to the head and legs, resulting in fractures. The Court emphasized that abuse of superior strength is present when there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors, and the aggressors purposely sought or deliberately intended to use this advantage. The evidence showed that the petitioners, along with others, used excessive force disproportionate to the victim's means of defense. On the penalty imposed: The Court found an error in the penalty imposed by the lower courts. For attempted murder, the penalty should be one degree lower than that prescribed for consummated murder, which is prision mayor. According to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for attempt is prision mayor. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be within the range of prision mayor (8 years and 1 day to 10 years), and the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower, prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years). Therefore, the Court modified the indeterminate penalty to imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. The awards for actual and moral damages were affirmed, with interest imposed.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for attempted murder, clarifying the elements of attempted felony, the sufficiency of an information, and the appreciation of aggravating circumstances, while modifying the penalty imposed.