PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE MAHINAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Mahinay

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecute Jessie Mahinay for the shooting of two co-workers in a fish pen in the middle of Laguna Lake — one of whom, Albert Villanueva, died, and the other, Eric Labao, survived. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of crimes against persons: how intent to kill is proved, how attempted murder is distinguished from frustrated murder and from slight physical injury, how treachery qualifies a killing to murder, and how the penalties and damages are computed. For a Bar candidate, it is a compact review of Articles 6, 51, and 248 of the Revised Penal Code in operation.

Procedural History

Two Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 153. The first charged Murder for the death of Albert Villanueva; the second charged Frustrated Murder for the shooting of Eric Labao. The two cases were tried jointly. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. The defense initially presented the accused himself, but later waived the presentation of evidence, moved to strike his testimony from the record, and instead filed a memorandum. The trial court rendered a Joint Decision finding the accused guilty of Murder and of the lesser offense of Attempted Murder. From that Joint Decision, the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal was resolved by the Court's Third Division, with Justice Baltazar-Padilla writing the decision.

Facts

Jessie Mahinay, Albert Villanueva, and Eric Labao were co-employees in a fishpond at Talisay, Taguig City. At around noon on March 3, 2004, Labao was cooking lunch inside a nipa hut in a fish pen in Laguna Lake, together with Villanueva and other companions. Labao was only about two arms' length away from the accused.

While cooking, Labao heard a gunshot. When he looked around, he saw Villanueva clutching a gunshot wound on his chest. He then saw the accused going back and forth inside the nipa hut holding a .38 caliber gun. After Villanueva fell, the accused turned to Labao and shot him at the back before he could escape. Their companions jumped into the water to escape. Labao was rushed to the hospital and survived; Villanueva died.

Labao testified that the shooting was sudden and without warning, unaccompanied by any conversation or argument. The defense did not deny the shooting; it disputed only the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and argued that as to Labao the crime was at most slight physical injury because intent to kill was not proved.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given that the eyewitness Eric Labao was also a victim and his testimony was uncorroborated.
• Whether or not the crime committed against Eric Labao was attempted murder rather than slight physical injury only.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the shooting of Albert Villanueva and Eric Labao.

Applicable Provisions

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages of execution of a felony:

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 fixes the stage of the crime against Eric Labao, since the accused performed overt acts but did not complete the killing.

Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalty for an attempted felony:

A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.

This is the basis for the penalty imposed for attempted murder.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes murder and prescribes its penalty:

The crime of murder is committed by killing a person under any of the following circumstances: with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall commit the crime of murder.

Treachery is the qualifying circumstance that raised the killing of Albert Villanueva from homicide to murder.

Section 3 of Republic Act Number 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty:

The death penalty shall not be imposed. The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed in lieu of the death penalty.

This is why the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward, and worthy of credence. Labao was not a mere bystander but a victim, and his account was unwavering, spontaneous, and categorical. The trial court's evaluation of credibility is entitled to the highest respect because it observed the witnesses' demeanor on the stand. Moreover, the accused never denied in his memorandum that he shot Villanueva and Labao; he disputed only the qualifying circumstances.

On the second issue, the Court held that the crime against Labao was attempted murder, not slight physical injury. Intent to kill is a state of mind discerned from external manifestations — the acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.

Here the weapon was a .38 caliber gun, a deadly instrument; the shot was aimed at the upper back where it could pierce vital organs; the attack was sudden and unexpected; and it was carried out in an isolated fish pen in the middle of the lake. The Court also quoted the distinction between the stages:

When the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. However, if the wound/s sustained by the victim in such a case were not fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. If there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused and the wound/s sustained by the victim were not fatal, the crime committed may be serious, less serious or slight physical injury.

Because the wound on Labao was not shown to be mortal, the crime is attempted murder, not frustrated murder.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery was properly appreciated. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thus insuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor and without provocation on the part of the victim. Both shootings were sudden and unexpected, and the means employed were designed to ensure success without risk to the accused.

Doctrine

First, intent to kill is a specific intent proved by circumstantial evidence — the weapon used, the location and number of wounds, and the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the assault. Second, where the accused intended to kill and used a deadly weapon, but the wound inflicted was not fatal, the crime is attempted murder or attempted homicide, not frustrated murder and not slight physical injury. Third, treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the attack is sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself without risk to the aggressor. Fourth, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole under Republic Act Number 9346, and the penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower, or prision mayor, applied in its medium period under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Disposition

The appeal was denied. The Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed with modifications: the accused is not eligible for parole in the murder case, and he was ordered to pay interest at six percent per annum on all civil indemnity and damages from the finality of judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a deadly weapon used with intent to kill, producing a wound that is not mortal, makes the crime attempted murder, not frustrated murder and not slight physical injury. Examiners use this case to test the stages of execution under Article 6 and the distinction between attempted and frustrated felonies.