Attempted homicide explained - G.R. No. 182748

G.R. No. 182748

"x x x.

Two. But given that Arnel, the accused, was indeed the aggressor, would he be liable for frustrated homicide when the wounds he inflicted on Rufino, his victim, were not fatal and could not have resulted in death as in fact it did not?

The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the accused’s intent to take his victim’s life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal intent.[9] And the intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim.[10]

Here, Arnel struck Rufino on the head with a huge stone. The blow was so forceful that it knocked Rufino out. Considering the great size of his weapon, the impact it produced, and the location of the wounds that Arnel inflicted on his victim, the Court is convinced that he intended to kill him.

The Court is inclined, however, to hold Arnel guilty only of attempted, not frustrated, homicide. In Palaganas v. People,[11] we ruled that when the accused intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds he inflicted, but the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.

Thus, the prosecution must establish with certainty the nature, extent, depth, and severity of the victim’s wounds. While Dr. Belleza testified that “head injuries are always very serious,”[12] he could not categorically say that Rufino’s wounds in this case were “fatal.” Thus:

Q: Doctor, all the injuries in the head are fatal?
A: No, all traumatic injuries are potentially treated.

Q: But in the case of the victim when you treated him the wounds actually are not fatal on that very day?
A: I could not say, with the treatment we did, prevent from becoming fatal. But on that case the patient preferred to go home at that time.

Q: The findings also indicated in the medical certificate only refers to the length of the wound not the depth of the wound?
A: When you say lacerated wound, the entire length of the layer of scalp.

Q: So you could not find out any abrasion?
A: It is different laceration and abrasion so once the skin is broken up the label of the frontal lo[b]e, we always call it lacerated wound, but in that kind of wound, we did not measure the depth.[13]

Indeed, Rufino had two lacerations on his forehead but there was no indication that his skull incurred fracture or that he bled internally as a result of the pounding of his head. The wounds were not so deep, they merely required suturing, and were estimated to heal in seven or eight days. Dr. Belleza further testified:

Q: So, in the medical certificate the wounds will not require surgery?
A: Yes, Madam.

Q: The injuries are slight?
A: 7 to 8 days long, what we are looking is not much, we give antibiotics and antit[e]tanus – the problem the contusion that occurred in the brain.

x x x x

Q: What medical intervention that you undertake?
A: We give antibiotics, Your Honor, antit[e]tanus and suturing the wounds.

Q: For how many days did he stay in the hospital?
A: Head injury at least be observed within 24 hours, but some of them would rather go home and then come back.

Q: So the patient did not stay 24 hours in the hospital?
A: No, Your Honor.

Q: Did he come back to you after 24 hours?
A: I am not sure when he came back for follow-up.[14]

Taken in its entirety, there is a dearth of medical evidence on record to support the prosecution’s claim that Rufino would have died without timely medical intervention. Thus, the Court finds Arnel liable only for attempted homicide and entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
x x x."