G.R. No. 188562 ; August 17, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RODEL LANUZA y BAGAOISAN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rodel Lanuza was charged with Frustrated Homicide for shooting Joel G. Butay with a 12-gauge shotgun on April 1, 2007, in Laoag City. During the preliminary conference, the parties admitted that Lanuza shot Butay, causing a gunshot wound that required 12 days of hospitalization, and that Lanuza voluntarily surrendered to the police, turning over a shotgun, five live bullets, and one empty shell. Lanuza asserted the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, claiming the shooting occurred without fault or intention while he was performing a lawful act with due care during a guard shift turnover. Butay insisted the shooting was intentional. The RTC ordered a reverse trial. The defense version was that during the turnover, Butay reprimanded Lanuza for being late and handed the shotgun with the muzzle pointed at himself; Lanuza gripped it, his finger slipped onto the trigger, and the gun accidentally fired. The prosecution version was that Lanuza took the shotgun from a table, loaded it, shot Butay, attempted to fire a second time (which only produced a click), and then fled. Butay sustained a gunshot wound to the left lumbar area, a fractured spleen, and hemoperitoneum. The RTC found Lanuza guilty of Frustrated Homicide, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 7 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Lanuza appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s judgment convicting accused-appellant of Frustrated Homicide, specifically concerning: (1) the claim of the exempting circumstance of accident; (2) the presence of intent to kill; and (3) the propriety of the penalty and damages imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision.
1. On the Claim of Accident: The Court ruled that accused-appellant failed to prove all the requisites for the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements are: (a) a lawful act performed with due care; (b) an injury caused by mere accident; and (c) absence of fault or intent to cause injury. The Court found that Lanuza did not act with due care. Handling a firearm, especially during a transfer, requires the highest degree of caution. Lanuza admitted to gripping the shotgun with one hand while his finger was inside the trigger guard and on the trigger itself, a negligent act that directly caused the discharge. His claim of “slipping” did not equate to due care. Therefore, the exempting circumstance was not present.
2. On Intent to Kill and Crime Charged: The Court upheld the finding of intent to kill (animus occidendi) necessary for Frustrated Homicide. Intent can be deduced from the means employed, the nature and location of the wound, and the conduct of the accused. The use of a deadly weapon (a shotgun) fired at close range at the victim’s torso (a vital part of the body) supports the intent to kill. The fact that the victim survived due to timely medical intervention does not negate this intent. The nature of the wound—a through-and-through gunshot wound causing a fractured spleen and internal bleeding—was sufficient to produce death, fulfilling the element of acts of execution that would have resulted in homicide. The Court found the prosecution’s version, corroborated by the medical evidence, more credible than the defense’s claim of an accidental slip.
3. On Penalty and Damages: The penalty for Frustrated Homicide under Article 249 in relation to Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period (10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months), to be imposed in its minimum period (10 years and 1 day to 12 years) absent any modifying circumstance. The RTC correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was admitted by the parties. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the RTC properly imposed the indeterminate penalty of 4 years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 7 years of prision mayor, as maximum. The award of ₱70,000.00 as actual damages (admitted during pre-trial) and ₱25,000.00 as moral damages was also affirmed.