G.R. No. 27415, November 29, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCOS MERCADO, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: Avanceña, C.J.

FACTS

On July 23, 1926, in Bustos, Bulacan, Marcos Mercado attacked and wounded his brother-in-law, Rufino Lopez, with a sharp weapon on the left side of the abdomen. The wound was serious and extended to the peritoneal cavity, which could have caused death without timely medical treatment. Mercado was convicted of frustrated murder by the trial court and sentenced to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of *reclusion temporal*.

The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from the victim Rufino Lopez and witness Alejandro Mercado, presented conflicting accounts of how the attack was carried out. Rufino claimed he was attacked from behind, while Alejandro testified that the accused came from behind but suddenly placed himself in front of Rufino before inflicting the wound. After being disarmed by Alejandro, Mercado picked up another bolo and attempted to attack Rufino again but was prevented by Alejandro’s intervention. The defense claimed self-defense, alleging that Rufino first attacked Mercado by grabbing his neck, but this was not proven.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed is frustrated murder, qualified by treachery (*alevosia*), or the lesser crime of frustrated homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The Court found the prosecution witnesses’ versions of the attack contradictory and irreconcilable (one claiming attack from behind, the other stating the assailant ended up in front). Given these contradictions, the manner of attack could not be determined with certainty, and treachery could not be appreciated.

However, the Court found that the accused had the clear intent to kill, as evidenced by the location and seriousness of the wound and his subsequent act of picking up another weapon to renew the attack. Thus, the crime committed was frustrated homicide.

The aggravating circumstance of relationship (the accused being the brother-in-law of the victim) was present. Applying the penalty one degree lower than that for consummated homicide (as the crime was frustrated), the Supreme Court sentenced Marcos Mercado to 10 years and 1 day of *reclusion temporal*. The rest of the trial court’s judgment, including the indemnity, was affirmed.