GR 215720; (February, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 215720 February 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. OSCAR MAT-AN Y ESCAD, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Oscar Mat-An was charged with Attempted Homicide and Murder for the stabbing of his 1.5-year-old granddaughter, Anthonette Ewangan, and his 61-year-old mother-in-law, Minda Babsa-ay, on April 8, 2009. The prosecution evidence established that an argument ensued at Minda’s store after Oscar, apparently intoxicated, questioned why his overseas-working wife was not answering his calls. After a brief silence, witnesses heard Minda moan and saw Oscar stab her twice in the chest while she was cradling Anthonette. The child sustained a stab wound to the nape. Minda died from her injuries, while Anthonette survived after hospitalization. Oscar fled but was apprehended by neighbors and an off-duty police officer. The defense presented Oscar as its sole witness, who denied the stabbing and claimed he was merely buying bread when Minda berated him for being drunk, after which he left and later learned of the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether the prosecution proved Oscar’s guilt for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed Oscar’s conviction for Murder but modified the conviction for Attempted Homicide to Slight Physical Injuries. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Norma Gulayan and Clyde Bunhian clear, consistent, and credible. Their positive identification of Oscar as the perpetrator prevailed over his bare denial, which is inherently weak. For Minda’s killing, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was duly proven. Oscar, armed with a knife, attacked an unarmed elderly woman, clearly exploiting his physical superiority and weaponry. However, the Court found evident premeditation not established, as no evidence showed the time when Oscar conceived the criminal design or that he persisted in it after sufficient reflection.
Regarding the attack on Anthonette, the Court ruled that the crime committed was Slight Physical Injuries, not Attempted Homicide. The prosecution failed to prove the specific intent to kill the child. The single, superficial wound on the nape, coupled with the circumstances—the child was accidentally injured while being held by the primary target, Minda—indicated a lack of deliberate intent to kill Anthonette. The element of intent for attempted felony was absent. Thus, the Court modified the penalty accordingly and affirmed the awarded damages for Minda’s death, with interest.