“(The Supreme Court said) when the intent to kill is lacking, but wounds are shown to have been inflicted upon the victim…the crime is not frustrated or attempted murder but physical injuries”
When a person suffers from wounds or injuries because of a physical assault but did not die, what was the crime committed? The case of Palaganas v. People “discussed the distinctions between a frustrated and an attempted homicide or murder, as well as physical injury” (G.R. 165483, Sept. 12, 2006).
In brief, “when the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code are present” (op. cit.).
“However, if the wound/s sustained by the victim in such a case were not fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. If there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused and the wound/s sustained by the victim were not fatal, the crime committed may be serious, less serious or slight physical injury” (op. cit.).
In the case of Peñaranda v. People, criminal information was filed charging Peñaranda and four others with frustrated murder, attacking Reynaldo Gutierrez (Gutierrez) with intent to kill using a samurai sword and lead pipe. Physical injuries were inflicted on Gutierrez which ordinarily would have caused his death if not for the timely and able medical assistance given to him.
According to the prosecution, Gutierrez, a tricycle driver, filed a complaint against Peñaranda in the Sangguniang Barangay for allegedly charging excessive fare. While at the tricycle terminal, Ivan Villaranda summoned his companions Rannie Cecilia, Raul Cecilia, Peñaranda and an unknown person.
“As these persons approached Gutierrez, [Peñaranda] threw a stone hitting him on his left arm. Although Gutierrez was armed with a steel pipe, he lowered his defense when Raul intervened and told him, “Hayaan mo na Boyet, ako na ang bahala”… but Edwin Celedonia, the occupant of the tricycle, alighted and hacked Gutierrez using a ‘samurai’” (G.R. 214426, Dec.2, 2021).
“Gutierrez was hit on his upper right biceps. Afterwards, Ivan, Rannie and Raul hit Gutierrez with steel pipes while [Peñaranda] hit him with a stone. Then, all the aggressors ran away leaving him wounded [and] [w]hile running away, Rannie threw a steel pipe, which Gutierrez earlier held, hitting the latter on his stomach” (op. cit.).
“Thereafter, he was brought to Sta. Maria Hospital and was later transferred to Reyes Memorial Hospital where his wounds were treated.” On the other hand, the version of the accused was that “Gutierrez cursed him, threw a stone at him and chased him with a ‘panaksak’ [and]… a barangay official intervened and prevented Gutierrez from chasing [Peñaranda]” (op. cit.).
After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Peñaranda guilty of Attempted Murder which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals with slight modifications. “[I]n order to determine whether the crime committed is attempted or frustrated homicide or murder, or only physical injuries, the crucial points to consider are a) whether the injury sustained by the victim was fatal; and b) whether there was intent to kill on the part of the accused.”
The Supreme Court held that the crime committed by Peñaranda is only serious physical injuries and not attempted murder. “[T]he prosecution failed to present evidence that the wound inflicted on Gutierrez was fatal and would have caused his death had medical help not been provided” (op. cit.).
“Going now to the issue of whether there was intent to kill, the Court holds that there was none. Intent to kill is the principal element of homicide or murder, in whatever stage of commission [and] [s]uch intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor.”
“[I]t must be emphasized that [Peñaranda] and his fellow malefactors were armed with a samurai, steel pipes, and a stone, whereas Gutierrez was rendered defenseless when he was asked to put down the steel pipe he was initially holding. Clearly, [Peñaranda] and his companions possessed all the necessary weapons to kill Gutierrez but chose not to do so” (op. cit. ).
“Rather,… after ganging up on Gutierrez, and after seeing that he was down, [Peñaranda] and his companions fled. They did not continue to beat Gutierrez nor did they leave him for dead. If the aggressors intended to kill Gutierrez, they could have easily done so…”
Peñaranda “was able to pick himself up and then immediately go to the barangay hall on his own… and request an ambulance without being pursued by his aggressors.” This “establishes the lack of any intention on the part of [Peñaranda] and his companions to kill him.”
“When the intent to kill is lacking, but wounds are shown to have been inflicted upon the victim, as in this case, the crime is not frustrated or attempted murder but physical injuries. Based on the medical certificate, Gutierrez sustained several hack wounds on the different parts of his body, which required more than thirty (30) days to heal”; thus, the crime committed is serious physical injuries (op. cit.).
