RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila


THIRDDIVISION


LEONIDASEPIFANIOYG.R.NO.157057
LAZARO,
Petitioner,
Present:

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,
Chairperson,
versusAUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CHICONAZARIO,and
NACHURA,JJ.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Promulgated:
Respondent.June26,2007
xx

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

BeforetheCourtisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRevisedRulesof
[1]
CourtassailingtheDecision datedMay22,2002oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.
[2]
CRNo.17995whichaffirmedtheDecision datedJuly5,1994oftheRegionalTrialCourt,
Branch 4, Panabo, Davao (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 9115 finding Leonidas Epifanio y
[3]
Lazaro (petitioner) guilty of Frustrated Murder, and the CA Resolution dated January 14,
2003whichdeniedpetitioner'sMotionforReconsideration.

Thefactsofthecase,asfoundbytheRTCandtheCA,areasfollows:

Ataround9:00o'clockintheeveningofAugust15,1990,CrisaldoAlberto(Crisaldo) and his
cousin,AllanPerez(Allan),werewalkingtotheirrespectivehomesinKilometer7,DelMonte,
Samal,DavaoafterspendingtimeatthehouseofCrisaldo'sfather.Sincethepavementgoingto
Crisaldo's house followed a narrow pathway along the local shrubs called banganga, Allan
[4]
walkedaheadofCrisaldoatadistanceofaboutthree(3)meters. Suddenly,Crisaldofeltthe
piercingthrustofabladedweapononhisback,whichcausedhimtocryoutinpain.Hemadea
quickturnaroundandsawhisattacker,petitioner,alsoknownasIyo(Uncle)Kingkoy.Petitioner
[5]
stabbedCrisaldoagainbutonlyhitthelatter'sleftarm.

WhenAllanheardCrisaldo'soutcry,herushedtoCrisaldo'ssideandsaid,IyoKingkoy(Uncle
[6]
Kingkoy),whydidyoustabSaldo?whichcausedpetitionertorunaway. Allanthenbrought
Crisaldotohisfather'shousewhereCrisaldo'swoundswerewrappedinablanket.Crisaldowas
thenbroughttothePeaplataHospital where he was given first aid and then transferred to the
[7]
DavaoMedicalCenterwherehestayedforthreeweekstorecuperatefromhiswounds. The
attending physician, Santiago Aquino, issued a Medical Certificate dated September 4, 1990,
withthefollowingfindings:

1.Stabwound(R)scapulararea(Medialborder)atlevel57thICS(L)armMedialaspectM3rd
2.Fracture7thand8thrib,posterior,right.
[8]
Probablehealingtimewillbe1530daysbarringcomplication.

Subsequently,petitionerwaschargedwithFrustratedMurderinCriminalCaseNo.9115. The
InformationdatedJanuary4,1991reads:

That on or about August 15, 1990, in the Municipality of Samal, Province of Davao,
Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionoftheHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,with
treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with a knife, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Crisaldo Alberto, thereby
inflicting upon him wounds which ordinarily would have caused his death, thus the accused
performedalltheactsofexecutionwhichwouldproducethecrimeofmurder,asaconsequence
butwhich,nevertheless,didnotproduceitbyreasonofsomecausesindependentofthewillof
theaccused,thatis,bythetimelyandablemedicalassistancerenderedtosaidCrisaldoAlberto,
andfurthercausingactual,moralandcompensatorydamagestotheoffendedparty.

[9]
Contrarytolaw.

DuringhisarraignmentonJune25,1991,petitioner,withtheassistanceofcounsel,pleadednot
[10]
guilty.
Petitioner'sdefenseconsistedmainlyofdenial.Heclaimsthatat7:00o'clockinthemorningof
August 15, 1990, he went to Anonang, within the Municipality of Kaputian, and harvested
coconutsbyclimbingthecoconuttreesthathewentbackhomeat4:30intheafternoonandhe
sleptat8:00o'clockintheeveningthatwhilehewassleeping,hiswifeawakenedhimbecause
SalvadorEpifanio(Salvador)wasaskingforhelp,assomebodywashacked,andhewenttothe
place of incident with Salvador that he found out that Crisaldo was already wrapped in cloth
andheaskedCrisaldowhowasresponsibleforstabbinghim,buthedidnotanswerthatthey
loadedCrisaldointhejeeptotakehimtothenearbyhospitalthatheandSalvadortookaride
withCrisaldouptoDelMontewherethetwoofthemalightedandreportedtheincidenttothe
barangaycaptainthatthefollowingmorning,hewenttoAnonangtoharvestcoconutsthatat
around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon when he arrived home, policemen Barraga and Labrador
were in his house and told him that he was the suspect in the stabbing incident that he was
[11]
detainedbuthewasnotinvestigatedanymoreandwasorderedtogohome.

[12]
On July 5, 1994, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting the petitioner, the dispositive
portionofwhichreads:

INTHELIGHTOFTHEFOREGOING,findingtheaccused,LeonidasEpifanioyLazaro
guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofFrustratedMurderpunishableunderArticle248in
relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court hereby sentence this accused to an
indeterminateimprisonmentofSIX(6)YEARSandONE(1)DAYofprisionmayorasminimum
to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum together with the accessory penalties
providedbylaw,andtopaythecosts.

AccusedisherebyorderedtoindemnifyCrisaldoAlbertothesumofP6,000.00bywayof
damages.

[13]
SOORDERED.

[14]
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA, docketed as CAG.R. CR No. 17995.
[15]
OnMay22,2002,theCArenderedaDecision affirmingintototheDecisionoftheRTC.

 [16]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in a
[17]
Resolution datedJanuary14,2003.

Petitionerfiledthepresentpetitionraisingasoleissueforresolution,towit:
WHETHERTHEGUILTOFTHEPETITIONERFORTHECRIMEOFFRUSTRATED
[18]
MURDERWASPROVENBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

Petitioner does not seek the reversal of his conviction but only that it be for the lesser
offenseofattemptedmurder.Hecontendsthatthereisnoevidencethattheinjuriessustainedby
Crisaldowerelifethreateningorwouldhavecausedhisdeathhaditnotbeenfortimelymedical
intervention since the medical certificate only stated that the healing time of the wounds
sustainedbyCrisaldowas1530daysbarringcomplication,withnonotationortestimonyofthe
attendingphysicianthatanyoftheinjurieswaslifethreatening.

TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG),ontheotherhand,contendsthatthefailureto
presentthedoctortotestifyonthenatureofthewoundssufferedbyCrisaldowasnotraisedas
an issue in the RTC that petitioner is now barred from raising it in the present petition for
reviewwithoutoffendingthebasicrulesoffairplay,justiceanddueprocessthatpetitionerdid
notobjecttotheadmissibilityofthemedicalcertificatewhenitwasofferedinevidencethatthe
crime is frustrated murder since petitioner performed all the acts of execution that the three
weeklengthofstayinthehospitalofCrisaldoisnotdeterminativeofwhetherornotthewounds
arefatal.

Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.

Thenonpresentationofthedoctortotestifyonthenatureofthewounds,whilenotraised
asanissueintheRTC,doesnotbarthepetitionerfromraisingitonappeal.Itisawellsettled
rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and the
reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even
reversethetrialcourtsdecisiononthebasisofgroundsotherthanthosethatthepartiesraisedas
[19]
errors.

 Itmustbestressedthatitisnotthegravityofthewoundsalonewhichdetermineswhether
afelonyisattemptedorfrustrated,butwhethertheassailanthadpassedthesubjectivephasein
thecommissionoftheoffense.

[20]
In the leading case of United States v. Eduave, Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court,
distinguishedanattemptedfromafrustratedfelony.Hesaidthattobeanattemptedcrime,the
purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and
compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all the acts which should
[21]
producethecrimeasaconsequence,whichactitishisintentiontoperform.

The subjective phase in the commission of a crime is that portion of the acts constituting the
crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act
performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated crime.
[22]
Thereafter,thephaseisobjective.

Incaseofanattemptedcrime,theoffenderneverpassesthesubjectivephaseinthecommission
ofthecrime.Theoffenderdoesnotarriveatthepointofperformingalloftheactsofexecution
whichshouldproducethecrime.Heisstoppedshortofthatpointbysomecauseapartfromhis
[23]
voluntarydesistance.

On the other hand, a crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of
executionwhichshouldresultintheconsummationofthecrime.Theoffenderhaspassedthe
subjectivephaseinthecommissionofthecrime.Subjectively,thecrimeiscomplete.Nothing
interrupted the offender while passing through the subjective phase. He did all that was
necessarytoconsummatethecrimehowever,thecrimeisnotconsummatedbyreasonofthe
[24]
interventionofcausesindependentofthewilloftheoffender.

Inhomicidecases,theoffenderissaidtohaveperformedalltheactsofexecutionifthewound
inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical
[25]
interventionorattendance. Ifoneinflictsphysicalinjuriesonanotherbutthelattersurvives,
thecrimecommittediseitherconsummatedphysicalinjuries,iftheoffenderhadnointentionto
killthevictimorfrustratedorattemptedhomicideorfrustratedmurderorattemptedmurderif
[26]
theoffenderintendstokillthevictim.

Intenttokillmaybeprovedbyevidenceof:(a)motive(b)thenatureornumberofweapons
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
[27]
timetheinjurieswereinflictedbyhimonthevictim.

In the present case, the intent to kill is very evident and was established beyond
reasonabledoubtthroughtheunwaveringtestimonyofCrisaldoonthemannerofexecutionof
theattackaswellasthenumberofwoundshesustained.Crisaldowasstabbedfrombehindby
petitioner.WhenCrisaldoturnedaround,petitionercontinuedhisassault,hittingCrisaldoonthe
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
[28]
unsuspectingvictimbutalsobythedeliberatemannerinwhichtheassaultwasperpetrated.

Nonetheless,petitionerfailedtoperformalltheactsofexecution,becauseAllancameto
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
recognizedpetitioner.Thus,thesubjectivephaseofthecrimehadnotbeencompleted.

Moreover, the prosecution failed to present testimonial evidence on the nature of the
wounds sustained by Crisaldo. The Court has discussed the importance of ascertaining the
[29]
degreeofinjurysustainedbyavictiminPeoplev.Matyaong, thus:
Inconsideringtheextentofinjurydone,accountmustbetakenoftheinjurytothefunctionofthe
various organs, and also the danger to life. A division into mortal and nonmortal wounds, if it
could be made, would be very desirable but the unexpected complications and the various
extraneouscauseswhichgivegravitytothesimplestcases,and,ontheotherhand,thefavorable
termination of some injuries apparently the most dangerous, render any such classification
impracticable.Thegeneralclassificationintoslight,severe,dangerous,andmortalwoundsmay
beused,butthepossibilityoftheslightwoundterminatingwiththelossofthepersonslife,and
the apparently mortal ending with only a slight impairment of some function, must always be
keptinmind.xxx


Thedangertolifeofanywoundisdependentuponanumberoffactors:theextentoftheinjury,
the form of the wound, the region of the body affected, the blood vessels, nerves, or organs
involved,theentranceofdiseaseproducingbacteriaorotherorganismsintothewound,theage
and constitution of the person injured, and the opportunities for administering proper surgical
[30]
treatment.xxx

NoevidenceinthiscasewasintroducedtoprovethatCrisaldowouldhavediedfromhis
wound without timely medical attendance. It is wellsettled that where there is nothing in the
evidencetoshowthatthewoundwouldbefatalifnotmedicallyattendedto,thecharacterofthe
woundisdoubtfulhence,thedoubtshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheaccusedandthecrime
[31]
committedbyhimmaybedeclaredasattempted,notfrustrated,murder.

Accordingly,theimposablepenaltyforthecrimeofattemptedmurder,followingArticle
51oftheRevisedPenalCode,isprisioncorreccionalinitsmaximumperiodtoprisionmayorin
itsmediumperiod.ApplyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,theminimumofthepenaltytobe
imposed should be within the range of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its medium period, and the maximum of the penalty to be imposed should be
withintherangeofprisioncorreccionalinitsmaximumperiodtoprisionmayorinitsmedium
period.Sincenogenericaggravatingormitigatingcircumstanceattendedthecommissionofthe
crimeofattemptedmurder,thepenaltyshouldbetwo(2)yearsandfour(4)monthsofprision
correccional,asminimumandeight(8)yearsofprisionmayor,asmaximum.

AnenttheawardofP6,000.00asdamages,theCourtnotesthatthereceiptsshowingthe
[32]
expensesincurredduringCrisaldo'shospitalizationamountedonlytoP853.50. Asageneral
rule, a party seeking the award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best
[33]
evidenceobtainabletojustifysuchaward. Onlysubstantiatedandproven expenses will be
recognizedincourt.Nonetheless,inlieuofactualdamages,theCourtgrantstemperatedamages
ofP6,000.00,asitcannotbedeniedthatCrisaldoincurredexpensesduringhisthreeweekstay
[34]
intheprovincialhospital,althoughtheexactamountcannotbeprovedwithcertainty.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 5, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4,
Panabo,DavaoinCriminalCaseNo.9115isMODIFIEDtotheeffectthatpetitionerisfound
GUILTYofATTEMPTEDMURDERandissentencedtosufferanindeterminateimprisonment
of2yearsand4monthsofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,and8yearsofprisionmayor,as
maximum together with the accessory penalties provided by law and petitioner is ordered to
indemnifyCrisaldoAlbertothesumofP6,000.00astemperatedamages,andcosts.

SOORDERED.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.




CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
attestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedin
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeEugenioS.Labitoria(retired)andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesTeodoroP.Regino(retired)and
JuanQ.Enriquez,Jr.,CArollo,p.120.
[2]
OriginalRecords,p.134.
[3]
CArollo,p.149.
[4]
TSN,August20,1991,TestimonyofCrisaldoAlberto,pp.56TSN,August21,1991,TestimonyofCrisaldoAlberto,p.7TSN,
August21,1991,TestimonyofAllanPerez,pp.1819.
[5]
TSN, August 20, 1991, Testimony ofCrisaldo Alberto, pp. 6, 1213 TSN, August 21, 1991, Testimony of Crisaldo Alberto, p.
8TSN,August21,1991,TestimonyofAllanPerez,pp.1920.
[6]
TSN,August20,1991,TestimonyofCrisaldoAlberto,pp.7,13TSN,August21,1991,TestimonyofAllanPerez,p.20.
[7]
TSN,August21,1991,TestimonyofCrisaldoAlberto,p.8TSN,August21,1991,TestimonyofAllanPerez,p.21.
[8]
Exh.A,OriginalRecords,p.44.
[9]
OriginalRecords,pp.12.
[10]
Id.at69.
[11]
TSN,October7,1993,TestimonyofLeonidasEpifanio,pp.1620.
[12]
OriginalRecords,p.134.
[13]
Id.at154.
[14]
CArollo,p.53.
[15]
Id.at120.
[16]
Id.at130.
[17]
Id.at149.
[18]
Rollo,p.17.
[19]
Pangonoromv.People,G.R.No.143380,April11,2005,455SCRA211,220 Peoplev.Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 728 (2003)
Peoplev.Lucero,G.R.Nos.10240708,March26,2001,355SCRA93,101102.
[20]
36Phil.209(1917).
[21]
Id.at212.
[22]
Id.at213.
[23]
UnitedStatesv.Eduave,supranote20,at212.
[24]
Ibid.
[25]
SeePeoplev.Sumalpong,348Phil.501,522523Peoplev.Maguikay,G.R.No.10322628,October14,1994,237SCRA587,
605.
[26]
Peoplev.Caballero,448Phil.514,534(2003).
[27]
Peoplev.Caballero,id.at534.
[28]
Peoplev.Pacificador,426Phil.563,595(2002)Peoplev.Villamor,424Phil.302,318(2002)Peoplev.Listerio,390Phil.337,
357(2000).
[29]
411Phil.939(2001).
[30]
Peoplev.Matyaong,supranote29,at948citingWhartonandStilles,MedicalJurisprudence,vol.III,fifthedition,p.174(1905).
[31]
Peoplev.Costales,424Phil.321,334(2002)Peoplev.DelaCruz,353Phil.363,386(1998).
[32]
ExhibitsCtoC12,OriginalRecords,pp.8994.
[33]
Peoplev.Agudez,G.R.No.13838687,May20,2004,428SCRA692,713Peoplev.Bao,464Phil.872,885(2004).
[34]
Peoplev.Ronas,403Phil.613,630(2001).