PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PABLO MONTEMAYOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Montemayor

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Pablo Montemayor, an appeal from a conviction for frustrated homicide. The accused was charged with shooting a farm tenant twice with a revolver after a dispute over railroad trunks taken from the land the victim was tending. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on the stages of a felony: the Court affirms the conviction but lowers the crime from frustrated homicide to attempted homicide, on the ground that the prosecution never proved the wounds were mortal. It is, in other words, a case about what the difference between frustrated and attempted really costs the accused.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 61, of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, and pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court, in a decision dated July 9, 2004, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide, sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and awarded actual damages, loss of income, and moral damages. Aggrieved, the accused interposed an appeal, raising the sole issue that the trial court convicted him not on the strength of the prosecution's evidence but on the weakness of the defense evidence. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which sustained the conviction but for the lesser offense of attempted homicide, with modifications to the damages and the penalty.

Facts

On the evening of February 13, 2003, Magdalino Gudaca and his wife Dolores were at home in Barangay Vista Alegre, Ilog, Negros Occidental, when they were told that several persons were taking railroad trunks from the farm Gudaca was tenanting. Gudaca and his wife went to the farm and found Pablo Montemayor, together with five others, taking the trunks. Gudaca told them not to take all of them because the trunks had been entrusted to him, but the group refused and said they needed them. Gudaca replied that he would see them before the barangay captain.

At that point, Montemayor stood up, drew a .38 caliber revolver, and shot Gudaca twice, hitting him first on the chest and then on the right back. Dolores rushed to her husband and brought him home, then to the Kabankalan District Hospital for first aid, and afterward to Doctor's Hospital in Bacolod City, where he underwent a surgical operation.

The defense told a different story. Montemayor claimed he had been contracted by a certain Nelson Lacson to load railroad trunks for a fee, and that at the farm he saw Lacson already quarreling with Gudaca. According to him, Gudaca took out a bolo and hacked Lacson, and Lacson then shot Gudaca with a .357 revolver. Montemayor said he ran home with his carabao and told no one because Lacson had threatened him. The trial court rejected this account and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant on the basis of the weakness of the defense evidence rather than the strength of the prosecution evidence.
• Whether or not the crime committed was frustrated homicide rather than attempted homicide, given the evidence on the nature and gravity of the wounds inflicted.
• Whether or not the awards of moral damages and loss of income, and the penalty imposed, should be modified.

Applicable Provisions

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines the stages of a felony:

ART. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. – Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

This provision supplies the dividing line the Court applies: the accused performed the acts of shooting, but whether he performed all the acts of execution depends on whether the wounds were mortal.

Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, fixes the penalty for an attempted crime:

Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that the imposable penalty for an attempted crime shall be lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony.

This governs the penalty once the crime is lowered to attempted homicide, since homicide under Article 249 is punished by reclusion temporal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's factual findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect absent glaring errors or misapprehension of facts, because the trial court heard the testimonies and observed the witnesses' deportment. The victim positively and categorically identified the accused as his assailant, and his credibility was strengthened by the absence of any improper motive to falsely accuse. The Court looked upon the defense of denial with disfavor, noting that the accused offered no concrete proof and could not justify his failure to report his version to the authorities even with his liberty at stake.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that there was intent to kill, shown by the deadly weapon used and the number and location of the wounds, and that no qualifying circumstance elevated the crime to murder. But it differed on the second element of frustrated homicide. The medical certificate merely enumerated the physician's diagnosis and the operations conducted; it did not state the gravity of the wounds or whether they were mortal enough to cause death without timely medical intervention, and the attending physician was never presented in court. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Serrano versus People:

When nothing in the evidence shows that the wound would be fatal without medical intervention, the character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under this situation, the doubt created by the lack of evidence should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Thus, the crime committed should be attempted, not frustrated, homicide.

On the third issue, the Court reduced moral damages from 20,000 pesos to 10,000 pesos, deleted the award for loss of income for lack of sufficient evidence, and imposed interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum on the damages from finality of the decision until fully paid. Applying Article 51, two degrees lower than reclusion temporal is prision correccional, and under the Indeterminate Sentence Law the maximum term is taken from the medium period of prision correccional while the minimum is taken from arresto mayor. The Court thus imposed six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum.

Doctrine

Frustrated homicide requires that the victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of timely medical assistance. The crucial point is the nature of the wound, which must be supported by independent proof that it was sufficient to cause death without timely medical intervention. A medical certificate that merely states the diagnosis and the operations performed, without the attending physician testifying on the gravity of the wound, is inadequate to establish the mortal character of the wound. Where the evidence leaves the fatality of the wound in doubt, the doubt is resolved in favor of the accused, and the crime is attempted, not frustrated, homicide. Intent to kill, by contrast, is inferred from the means used and the nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision was affirmed with modifications: the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted homicide and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum, with moral damages reduced to 10,000 pesos, the award for loss of income deleted, and interest at six percent per annum imposed on the damages from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that without proof that the wound was mortal, the crime is only attempted, not frustrated, homicide. Examiners use this case to test the stages of a felony and the evidentiary requirement that the attending physician testify on the gravity of the wound.