GR 175023; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175023; July 5, 2010
GIOVANI SERRANO y CERVANTES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a brawl between rival groups at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, on March 8, 1999. Petitioner Giovani Serrano was charged with Frustrated Homicide for allegedly stabbing Anthony Galang in the stomach during the melee. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including the victim, who positively identified Serrano as the assailant who stabbed him while he was being held by others. The defense denied involvement, claiming Serrano had left the scene when the group rumble began.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Serrano of Frustrated Homicide. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction to Attempted Homicide. The CA held that while the intent to kill was present, the prosecution failed to prove with certainty that the victim’s injuries were fatal without timely medical intervention. The CA found that the evidence did not establish that the stab wound was inherently lethal or that the accused performed all acts of execution for Frustrated Homicide.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted petitioner Giovani Serrano of Attempted Homicide instead of Frustrated Homicide.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling convicting Serrano of Attempted Homicide. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between frustrated and attempted felonies under the Revised Penal Code. For Frustrated Homicide, the prosecution must prove that the offender performed all acts of execution which would produce the crime of homicide, but the death did not occur due to a cause independent of the offender’s will. Crucially, it must be established that the victim’s injury was fatal and would have caused death absent medical intervention.
Here, the Court agreed with the CA that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove the fatal nature of the wound. The medical certificate and testimony did not categorically state that the injury was mortal or that the victim would have died without treatment. The physician was not presented to testify on the gravity of the wound. Without this essential proof, all acts of execution for homicide were not completed; thus, the crime did not progress beyond the attempted stage. The positive identification of Serrano as the perpetrator and the presence of intent to kill were upheld, properly supporting the conviction for Attempted Homicide. The penalty was accordingly adjusted under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.