GR 140344; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140344 ; August 18, 2000
SOLOMON RABOR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Solomon Rabor was charged with Frustrated Murder for hacking Hikaru Miyake with a bolo on August 17, 1981, in Davao City. The prosecution established that Miyake was taking a bath when Rabor attacked him, inflicting multiple incised wounds. Their previously cordial relationship had soured due to a quarrel between their wives over a loan, leading to prior threats from Rabor. Miyake positively identified Rabor as his assailant. The defense interposed alibi, claiming Rabor was in Sigaboy, Davao Oriental, from August 17 to 30, 1981, to get coconut seedlings, a claim corroborated by Vicente Panes and Rabor’s wife.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Rabor of Frustrated Murder, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found the victim’s testimony credible and the alibi weak, noting that Sigaboy was not so distant as to preclude Rabor’s presence at the crime scene. Rabor filed this petition for review, arguing the CA erred in its findings.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Frustrated Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Frustrated Murder to Frustrated Homicide. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts, upholding the credibility of Miyake’s positive identification and rejecting the alibi for failure to prove the physical impossibility of Rabor’s presence at the crime scene. However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove that the mode of attack was consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The attack occurred during a struggle where the victim was able to grapple for the bolo, indicating an opportunity for self-defense. Absent treachery, the crime is Frustrated Homicide.
Applying Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is one degree lower than that for Homicide. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum. The assailed decision was modified accordingly.