EPIFANIO vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Case Digest

LEONIDAS EPIFANIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 
G.R. No. 157057 June 26, 2007 

FACTS: On August 15, 1990, Crisaldo Alberto (Crisaldo) and his cousin, Allan Perez
(Allan), were walking to their respective homes after spending time at the house of
Crisaldo's father. Since the pavement going to Crisaldo's house followed a narrow
pathway along the local shrubs called banganga, Allan walked ahead of Crisaldo.
Suddenly, Crisaldo felt the piercing thrust of a bladed weapon on his back, which
caused him to cry out in pain. He made a quick turnaround and saw his attacker,
petitioner, also known as "Iyo (Uncle) Kingkoy." Petitioner stabbed Crisaldo again but
only hit the latter's left arm. When Allan heard Crisaldo's outcry, he rushed to Crisaldo's
side which caused petitioner to run away. Allan then brought Crisaldo to his father's
house where Crisaldo's wounds were wrapped in a blanket. Crisaldo was then brought
to the Peñaplata Hospital where he was given first aid and then transferred to the
Davao Medical Center where he stayed for three weeks to recuperate from his wounds. 

During his arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty." Petitioner's defense consisted
mainly of denial. On July 5, 1994, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting the
petitioner was charged with Frustrated Murder punishable under article 248 in relation to
article 6 to Revised Penal Code THE Court hereby sentenced this accused to an
indeterminate imprisonment of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to
ten years of prision mayor as maximum together with the accessory penalties provided
by law and to pay the costs. Accused is hereby ordered to indemnify Crisaldo Alberto
the sum of 6,000 by way of damaged. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA,
which affirmed the decision in toto the Decision of RTC. 

ISSUE: Whether the guilt of the petitioner of the crime of frustrated murder was proven
beyond reasonable doubt. 

HELD: No. It must be stressed that it is not the gravity of the wounds alone which
determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated, but whether the assailant had
passed the subjective phase in the commission of the offense. 

In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the
wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring
medical intervention or attendance. If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the
latter survives, the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the
offender had no intention to kill the victim; or frustrated or attempted homicide or
frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to
kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons
used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on
the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the
offender at the time the injuries were inflicted by him on the victim. 
In the present case, the intent to kill is very evident and was established beyond
reasonable doubt through the unwavering testimony of Crisaldo on the manner of
execution of the attack as well as the number of wounds he sustained. Crisaldo was
stabbed from behind by petitioner. When Crisaldo turned around, petitioner continued
his assault, hitting Crisaldo on the left arm as the latter tried to defend himself. The
treacherous manner in which petitioner perpetrated the crime is shown not only by the
sudden and unexpected attack upon the unsuspecting victim but also by the deliberate
manner in which the assault was perpetrated. Nonetheless, petitioner failed to perform
all the acts of execution, because Allan came to the aid of Crisaldo and petitioner was
forced to scamper away. He did not voluntarily desist from stabbing Crisaldo, but he had
to stop stabbing when Allan rushed to help Crisaldo and recognized petitioner. Thus,
the subjective phase of the crime had not been completed. 

Moreover, the prosecution failed to present testimonial evidence on the nature of the
wounds sustained by Crisaldo. No evidence in this case was introduced to prove that
Crisaldo would have died from his wound without timely medical attendance. It is well-
settled that where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be
fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful; Wherefore, the
decision of the Trial Court is Modified to the effect the Petitioner is found Guilty of
attempted murder and its sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of 2 years
and four months of prision mayor to maximum together with the accessory penalties
provided by law and to pay the costs. Accused is hereby ordered to indemnify Crisaldo
Alberto the sum of 6,000 as temperate damage and cost.
SO OREDERED.