PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE VELORIA Y RAPSING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Veloria

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Felipe Veloria y Rapsing for the stabbing of a fellow Tamaraw FX driver, Rogelio Biares y Bautista, in Binondo, Manila. The accused admitted that his knife wounded the complainant but claimed the injury was pure accident, and the case therefore turns on two questions every bar candidate must master: who bears the burden when accident is invoked, and how intent to kill is proved in crimes against persons. It matters because the Supreme Court refuses to convict for attempted homicide on sympathy or suspicion, and instead calibrates the conviction to the wound actually proved.

Procedural History

An Information charged the accused with frustrated homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33. On arraignment, assisted by counsel, he pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded with the complainant and the arresting police officer testifying for the prosecution, and the accused and two defense witnesses for the defense. The trial court rendered its decision in March 2013, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to two years and four months of prision correccional as maximum, plus costs. He filed a timely Notice of Appeal in May 2013, and the case rose directly to the Supreme Court on appeal.

Facts

On the morning of 15 December 2010, near Meisic Mall along Reina Regente Street in Binondo, Manila, the complainant was waiting for passengers when, according to the prosecution, the accused suddenly attacked him from behind with a kitchen knife. The complainant parried with his arm and grappled for the knife, and was wounded on his left forearm and right hand. A police officer on a motorcycle heard a shout that someone had been stabbed, chased the accused onto a passenger jeepney, blocked it, and arrested him after he drew the knife and then dropped it upon seeing the officer's firearm. The complainant was taken to the Ospital ng Maynila, underwent surgery, and was confined for almost two days.

The defense told a different story. The accused, sixty-nine years old and the oldest of the drivers on the route, testified that he had just finished repairing his vehicle and was still holding the kitchen knife when the complainant, who habitually played jokes on him by suddenly touching his buttocks, scrotum, and penis, touched his anus. Startled, he turned around quickly and accidentally hit the complainant's left forearm with the knife. The complainant tried to grab the knife, the accused repelled him, and the complainant ran away shouting that he had been stabbed. The accused boarded a jeepney to go to the barangay headquarters to surrender, and was arrested only fifteen meters away. Two defense witnesses corroborated his account.

The medical records told their own story. The temporary Medical Certificate, the hospital Medical Chart, and the Referral Form uniformly showed a single three-centimeter stab wound on the medial aspect of the left forearm, an injury neither fatal nor life-threatening.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is exempt from criminal liability on the ground of accident under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved intent to kill, so as to sustain a conviction for attempted homicide.
• Whether or not the accused may instead be convicted of the lesser crime of slight physical injuries, and what civil liability attaches.

Applicable Provisions

Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 4, exempts from criminal liability:

Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

This is the exempting circumstance the accused invoked, and it is the provision against which his defense of accident is measured.

Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court governs judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof:

When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

This is the procedural bridge that allows conviction for slight physical injuries even though the Information charged frustrated homicide.

Section 5 of the same Rule defines when an offense includes another:

An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitutes the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

This supplies the test of inclusion that makes the lesser conviction lawful.

Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 2, defines the offense ultimately proved:

By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance.

This is the provision under which the accused was ultimately convicted and sentenced.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the defense of accident failed. Because the accused admitted causing the injuries while invoking an exempting circumstance, the burden of proof shifted to him, and accident must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Its elements are that he was performing a lawful act, with due care, that he caused the injury by mere accident, and without fault or intention of causing it. He failed to show due care: after finishing his repairs he continued to hold the kitchen knife, and even if startled, he could have avoided swinging the knife toward his back as he turned.

On the second issue, the Court held that intent to kill was not proved. Intent to kill is an essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide and must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and it may be inferred from the means used, the nature, location, and number of wounds, the conduct of the offender before, during, and after the act, the circumstances, and the motive. Here the medical documents, being public documents, uniformly showed a single three-centimeter wound on the forearm, and the complainant's bare claim of three stab wounds could not prevail over them. Had the accused intended to kill, he would have aimed at vital parts and pressed the attack; instead he desisted once the complainant failed to wrest the knife. There was also no improper motive, the two being friends of thirteen years and the complainant the godfather of the accused's son.

On the third issue, the Court applied the variance rule and convicted him of slight physical injuries, necessarily included in the charge, there being no proof of medical attendance or incapacity for labor. It awarded five thousand pesos in moral damages, but no actual damages for lack of competent proof such as receipts.

Doctrine

• Accident under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code is an affirmative defense; once the accused admits causing the injury, the burden shifts to him to prove its elements by clear and convincing evidence.
• Intent to kill is an essential element of attempted and frustrated homicide and must be proved with the same certainty as any other element; it is inferred from the means used, the number and location of wounds, the offender's conduct, the circumstances, and motive.
• Absent intent to kill, the accused may be convicted of physical injuries, and under the variance rule a lesser offense necessarily included in the charge may be the subject of conviction.
• Moral damages of five thousand pesos are awarded for slight physical injuries, while actual damages require competent proof.

Disposition

The appeal was partly granted: the accused was convicted of slight physical injuries, sentenced to eleven days of arresto menor, and ordered to pay the complainant five thousand pesos in moral damages.

Remember This

Memorize this line: accident is an affirmative defense that shifts the burden, but intent to kill must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Examiners use this case to test the variance rule and the proof of intent to kill in crimes against persons.