G.R. No. 168827; April 13, 2007
BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Dean Dongui-is, a teacher, and his wife had filed a civil case for damages against petitioner Benjamin Martinez and his wife. The complaint stemmed from Martinez spreading rumors of an illicit affair between Dongui-is and another woman, Elvisa Basallo, who also filed a separate civil case. On February 3, 1999, after a hearing on a motion to dismiss in the morning, Dongui-is went to a cooperative in the afternoon. As he walked to his car, Martinez suddenly emerged from behind a vehicle armed with a bolo and stabbed him in the chest. Dongui-is fled into a bank office, but Martinez pursued him, cornered him, and inflicted two more wounds while shouting threats to kill him. Police intervened and arrested Martinez, who later exclaimed, “I killed him.” The victim survived after emergency surgery, with medical findings indicating the stab wound to the left ventricle would have been fatal without a timely-forming blood clot.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide, and whether the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) to elevate the crime to frustrated murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from frustrated murder to frustrated homicide. The legal logic hinges on the failure to prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of such means. The Court found these elements absent. The attack occurred in a public place in broad daylight. While the initial assault was sudden, the victim was not completely helpless; he was able to move backward, flee, and later parry a blow. The ensuing chase and second confrontation inside the bank negated the notion that the mode of attack was deliberately chosen to ensure the victim’s defenselessness from start to finish. With treachery not established, the crime is frustrated homicide. All other elements were proven: the accused performed all acts of execution which would produce felony; the felony was not produced due to a cause independent of the perpetrator’s will (the timely medical intervention); and the accused had intent to kill, evidenced by the weapon used, the location of the wounds, and his post-crime declarations.