G.R. No. 150607 November 26, 2004
Sancho Militante, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sancho Militante, a policeman, was charged with the complex crime of attempted and frustrated homicide. The Information alleged that on March 12, 1994, during a barangay fiesta in Nabua, Camarines Sur, Militante, armed with a handgun and with intent to kill, shot at Joven Sombrero but instead hit 13-year-old Maricris Torriente. The prosecution evidence established that Militante, who was visibly drunk, engaged in an argument with Sombrero. Despite pacification attempts by another policeman, Cornelio Bermido, Militante drew his firearm and fired at Sombrero as the latter was being led away. The bullet missed Sombrero and struck Maricris, causing severe internal injuries. Dr. Wulfrano Ricafort, Jr., the attending surgeon, testified that without timely medical intervention, Maricris would have died.
The defense presented a different version, claiming it was Sombrero who accidentally fired the shot during a struggle over Militante’s service firearm. The Regional Trial Court convicted Militante of frustrated homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Militante elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner for the crime of frustrated homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found no merit in Militante’s arguments challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses. The positive and categorical testimonies of eyewitnesses Ramon Orante and Cornelio Bermido, who both identified Militante as the gunman, were given full faith and credit. The Court emphasized that absent any evidence of ill motive, the presumption is that these witnesses testified in good faith. The defense’s theory of a struggle was rejected as a mere afterthought, noting that Militante did not report such an incident and fled the scene after the shooting—conduct indicative of guilt.
On the legal classification of the crime, the Court upheld the finding of frustrated homicide. All the elements were present: (1) the accused performed all acts of execution which would produce homicide; (2) the crime was not produced due to a cause independent of the accused’s will (the timely medical assistance); and (3) the accused had the intent to kill, which was evident from the use of a deadly weapon and the nature of the victim’s life-threatening wounds. The fact that the intended victim (Sombrero) was different from the actual victim (Torriente) is inconsequential under the doctrine of error in personae, as the criminal intent to kill followed the bullet.