G.R. No. 122664 . February 5, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE BAYOD y DALURAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant George Bayod was charged with Murder and Frustrated Murder for the hacking death of Eduardo del Rosario and the near-fatal attack on Arnold Tamo. The incident occurred on November 1, 1992, in Manila. The victims and their companions had just returned from selling fish and were in front of Eduardo’s house. A verbal altercation ensued with Bayod’s group, who were drinking nearby. This escalated into a physical fight. When Bayod’s group began losing the fistfight, they retreated, armed themselves, and returned. Bayod, wielding a bolo, hacked Arnold Tamo on the head and stabbed him. He then attacked Eduardo del Rosario, hacking him on the chin. Bayod’s companions, armed with wooden clubs, struck Eduardo on the head and face. Eduardo died from his injuries, while Arnold Tamo survived due to timely medical intervention. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including the victim Arnold Tamo and Amelia del Rosario, the common-law wife of Eduardo, who positively identified Bayod as the assailant.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bayod of Murder and Frustrated Homicide. On appeal, Bayod argued that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven and that the crime against Arnold Tamo should only be Homicide, not Frustrated Murder, as there was no evidence of intent to kill. He also challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether treachery attended the killing of Eduardo del Rosario to qualify it as Murder; (2) whether the crime against Arnold Tamo constituted Frustrated Murder or a lesser offense; and (3) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the conviction for Frustrated Homicide to Frustrated Murder. The Court found treachery present in the killing of Eduardo del Rosario. The attack was sudden and employed means that ensured the victim, a paralytic who could not defend himself, had no opportunity for resistance. The essence of treachery is the deliberate adoption of means of execution that afford no risk to the attacker from the defense of the victim, which was clearly established.
Regarding the attack on Arnold Tamo, the Court ruled it was Frustrated Murder. The nature and location of the wounds—a hack on the head and a stab in the abdomen—are inherently fatal and demonstrate a clear intent to kill. The fact that the victim survived due to medical intervention does not negate this intent; it merely prevents consummation. Under the Revised Penal Code, a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all acts of execution but the crime is not produced due to causes independent of his will. The penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which is accorded great respect.