AM 2008 13 SC; (November, 2008) (Digest)
March 13, 2026GR L 20290; (August, 1965) (Digest)
March 13, 2026G.R. No. 242552, March 3, 2021.
BENJAMIN M. OLIVEROS, JR., OLIVER M. OLIVEROS AND MAXIMO Z. SOTTO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
This case involves the conviction of petitioners for attempted murder. Chief Justice Peralta, in a Separate Opinion, dissented from the main decision, arguing that the petitioners should have been convicted of frustrated murder instead. The key point of contention revolves around the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, Glenn. The trial court’s findings, based on the testimony of Dr. Manaois, indicated that the victim’s wounds could have led to death from blood loss and infection if not for immediate medical treatment. The main opinion apparently viewed the doctor’s testimony as creating uncertainty regarding the fatal nature of the wounds, warranting a conviction for the lesser crime of attempted murder.
ISSUE
Whether the crime committed by the petitioners is frustrated murder, not attempted murder, based on the nature of the victim’s injuries.
RULING
Chief Justice Peralta maintained that the petitioners should be convicted of frustrated murder. He argued that the prosecution successfully established all the elements for frustrated murder, particularly that the accused performed all acts of execution which would have killed the victim, but death did not ensue due to timely medical intervention independent of the offenders’ will. The Separate Opinion emphasized that the testimony of Dr. Manaois, when holistically read, established that the wounds were fatal as they could have caused death. The use of words like “might” and “possibly” in describing the potential for death from blood loss or infection does not create uncertainty but, in fact, confirms the fatal nature of the injuries. The opinion cited the case of People v. Las Piñas, where the physician’s testimony that a wound “could lead to the death of the patient if neglected” was deemed sufficient to support a conviction for frustrated murder, even without a categorical statement that the wounds were fatal. Furthermore, Chief Justice Peralta noted that both the trial court and the appellate court had ruled that the crime was frustrated murder, and such factual findings are generally conclusive and entitled to great weight.
