People v. Mabug-at
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Ramon Mabug-at, and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. Juana was jealous of the accused due to his frequent visits to another woman. The accused invited Juana for a walk, but she refused and sent a note of excuse. On the night of August 11, 1925, the accused went to the house where Juana was attending a devotion. He requested Francisco Abellon to ask Juana to come downstairs, threatening to kill anyone who defended her. When Juana and her niece, Perfecta Buralo, came downstairs and walked towards their adjacent house, the accused followed them. As the two girls were ascending the stairs, the accused, standing at the foot of the stairway, fired a revolver shot, hitting Perfecta Buralo in the neck, destroying her left eye. Perfecta Buralo survived due to medical attention. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros found the accused guilty of frustrated murder, imposing a penalty of twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, indemnity, and costs. The Petition: The accused appealed, assigning as error the trial court's finding that the crime was frustrated murder and its failure to give credit to the defense's evidence, which contended that the crime was merely the discharge of a firearm with injuries, not frustrated murder, as the intent to kill was not proven.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed is frustrated murder. Whether the defense's evidence should have been given credit.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed in all its parts. The accused is guilty of frustrated murder.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the crime committed is frustrated murder: The Court held that the crime committed was frustrated murder. The evidence showed that the accused and Juana Buralo were in a relationship, and the accused was disappointed when Juana refused his invitation and was jealous of his visits to another woman. The accused went to Juana's location with a revolver, threatened to kill anyone who intervened, and followed Juana and her niece. Crucially, the accused fired a shot while the girls were ascending the stairs, with their backs to him, and the shot was aimed at Juana's person, specifically her head. Although Perfecta Buralo was hit, the Court found that the accused's intention was to kill Juana. The Court cited United States vs. Montenegro (15 Phil. 1) for the principle that intention to kill can be inferred from attendant circumstances, especially when a firearm is discharged point-blank at vital parts of the body. The Court also applied Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, stating that the fact that a person other than the intended victim received the shot does not alter criminal liability. The Court found that treachery was present because the accused employed means to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself, as the victims were going upstairs with their backs turned. The Court clarified that while evident premeditation was not sufficiently established, treachery was proven and qualified the crime. The Court concluded that the accused performed all acts of execution which would have produced murder but did not by reason of causes independent of his will, thus constituting frustrated murder. On the issue of whether the defense's evidence should have been given credit: The Court found no merit in the defense's contention that the crime was merely the discharge of a firearm with injuries. The Court reiterated that the circumstances surrounding the shooting, including the accused's motive (disappointment and jealousy), his actions (going to Juana's location with a revolver, making threats), and the manner of the shooting (aiming at the victim's head, employing means to insure execution without risk), clearly indicated an intent to kill. The Court found that these facts established the crime of frustrated murder beyond a reasonable doubt, thus discrediting the defense's argument that the intent to kill was absent.
Main Doctrine
The crime committed was frustrated murder, qualified by treachery, where the accused intended to kill Juana Buralo but by accident, Perfecta Buralo was wounded. The doctrine that the accidental reception of a shot intended for another does not alter criminal liability was applied.