GR 163331; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163331; August 29, 2008
Arellano Novicio, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Arellano Novicio was charged with Frustrated Homicide for allegedly shooting Mario Mercado during a gathering in San Luis, Aurora. The prosecution’s version, as testified to by Mercado and corroborated by his wife and father-in-law, stated that Novicio arrived at the party, drew a gun, and after telling Mercado not to stand, shot him. Mercado fled and was later hospitalized for a gunshot wound to the lower abdomen. The defense presented a starkly different account, claiming Mercado was the initial aggressor. Novicio testified that a drunk Mercado provoked him, drew a .38 caliber revolver, and pointed it at him. A struggle for the gun ensued, during which it accidentally discharged, wounding Mercado. Defense witnesses corroborated this story of an accidental shooting during a grapple.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of Frustrated Homicide, particularly the petitioner’s intent to kill.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, which gave greater weight and credibility to the prosecution’s version of events. It found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be consistent and credible on material points, whereas the defense’s claim of accidental shooting was deemed unconvincing. On the critical element of intent to kill (animus interficiendi), the Court ruled it was sufficiently established. Intent is a state of mind often inferred from the circumstances of the act. The Court emphasized that the use of a deadly weapon like a gun, directed at a vital part of the victim’s body, gives rise to a presumption of intent to kill. The nature and location of the wound—a gunshot to the lower abdomen which the attending physician testified could be fatal if untreated—buttressed this finding. The fact that only one wound was inflicted does not negate intent, as established in prior jurisprudence. The Court concluded that all acts of execution were performed, and death was prevented only by timely medical intervention, thus constituting Frustrated Homicide.