GR 172834; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172834 ; February 6, 2008
JUN MUPAS and GIL MUPAS, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Jun and Gil Mupas were charged with frustrated homicide for allegedly attacking Rogelio Murao with fists, stones, and a knife on February 18, 1993. The prosecution’s narrative, led by Rogelio’s testimony, stated that Jun stabbed him while Gil restrained him during a chase that culminated in an assault inside a tricycle. Rogelio sustained injuries documented in a medical certificate. The defense presented a contrasting version, claiming the incident began as a mutual fistfight after Jun accidentally splashed water on Rogelio. Defense witnesses testified that Gil (also called Banjo) only intervened to pacify the combatants and that Rogelio and his father later arrived at the Mupas residence armed with a bolo.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved Gil Mupas’s guilt and participation beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the crime committed by Jun Mupas was frustrated homicide or a lesser offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decisions. First, it acquitted Gil Mupas. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove his identity as a co-conspirator. Rogelio’s testimony did not categorically identify “Banjo” as Gil Mupas, and other witnesses stated Gil acted only as a peacemaker. Without clear proof of conspiracy or direct participation, his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Second, the Court downgraded Jun Mupas’s conviction from frustrated homicide to less serious physical injuries. For frustrated homicide, the prosecution must prove the accused performed all acts of execution to kill and that the victim’s survival was due to timely medical intervention independent of the assailant’s will. Here, the medical certificate described the injuries as a cut wound, abrasions, and a contusion with a two-week healing period. The attending physician did not testify that the injuries were fatal or life-threatening, nor did he state that the treatment given was the reason Rogelio survived. Absent this crucial medical testimony on the nature of the wounds and the necessity of the intervention to prevent death, the element of intent to kill was not proven to a moral certainty. The injuries, which required medical attendance for more than ten days, properly constitute the crime of less serious physical injuries under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code. Jun was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay temperate and moral damages.