GR 167766; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167766 ; April 7, 2010
Engr. Carlito Pentecostes, Jr., Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Engr. Carlito Pentecostes, Jr. was charged with Frustrated Murder for shooting Rudy Baclig on September 2, 1998. The prosecution alleged that while Baclig was walking with his son, petitioner, driving a car, called him, then shot him once, hitting him below the left armpit. Baclig ran, and petitioner drove away. Baclig identified petitioner as the assailant. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner of the lesser crime of Attempted Murder, rejecting his alibi that he was in Quezon City on official business during the incident.
The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction to Less Serious Physical Injuries. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of intent to kill. The CA noted petitioner shot only once, did not pursue Baclig when he fled, and sped away immediately. The wound required only ten days of medical attendance. Petitioner filed this appeal, arguing his alibi should have been credited.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted petitioner of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries instead of Attempted or Frustrated Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s finding of guilt for Less Serious Physical Injuries, with a modification on the penalty. The Court upheld the CA’s legal reasoning that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill (dolo homicida), a requisite for crimes of murder in any stage. Intent is a state of mind, deduced from the circumstances. Here, the act of firing a single shot without any further overt act to ensure death, the immediate flight of the assailant, and the non-serious nature of the injury which healed in ten days, collectively demonstrated a lack of intent to kill. The Court also agreed that treachery was not established, as the attack was frontal and the victim was forewarned when petitioner called his nickname. Regarding the defense of alibi, the Court found it inherently weak and correctly rejected, as it was not physically impossible for petitioner to have been at the crime scene. The penalty was adjusted to a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor, as the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the maximum penalty is less than one year.