PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AMADOR LIM AND NELSON DIEGO, ACCUSED,

People versus Lim

The Case

This is a criminal appeal brought by Amador Lim, also known as Baby Lim, from a judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Culasi, Antique convicting him of double frustrated murder for the shooting of Remo Frias, Junior and Macreynold Ginolos. The case matters because it teaches how the intent to kill is proved in the frustrated stage of murder, how treachery and evident premeditation are established, how the penalty for frustrated murder is computed, and how damages are tempered when actual expenses are not fully proved. The companion accused, Nelson Diego, was acquitted by the trial court in this case, and his appeal in the separate murder case was later withdrawn because he chose to seek executive clemency.

Procedural History

Amador Lim and Nelson Diego were charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, of Culasi, Antique with double frustrated murder with the use of an illegally possessed firearm. This case was tried jointly with a separate murder case arising from the same incident. Both accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment. On December 29, 2004, the trial court convicted Amador Lim of double frustrated murder with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, sentenced him to imprisonment for each victim, and ordered him to pay damages. The trial court acquitted Nelson Diego for lack of evidence of his participation in the gunshot injuries sustained by the two victims. Amador Lim appealed. The Office of the Solicitor General failed to file the appellee's brief within the period it requested, and its motions for extension were denied. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it and partly granted the appeal, affirming the conviction but modifying the penalty and the damages.

Facts

On the night of December 23, 1990, at about eleven o'clock in the evening, Ronnelo Ginolos, Macreynold Ginolos, Remo Frias, and Jonathan Pacenio were having drinks inside the Roadside Canteen on Semirara Island in Caluya, Antique. Amador Lim and Nelson Diego arrived. When Macreynold Ginolos and Remo Frias stepped out to urinate, Nelson Diego followed them and pointed a .38 caliber revolver at them. The two went back inside and told Amador Lim what his companion had done. Macreynold then saw both accused going out.

After a while, Nelson Diego re-entered the canteen and told Ronnelo Ginolos that Amador Lim wanted him outside. Macreynold instructed Ronnelo not to go out. The two accused then entered the canteen and shot Ronnelo Ginolos in the stomach, causing him to stoop over the table. They dragged him outside, and Remo Frias and Macreynold followed. When they caught up, Macreynold wrestled with Amador Lim for the gun while Remo Frias did the same with Nelson Diego, who immediately ran away.

The gun being grappled over by Macreynold and Amador Lim fell to the floor. Thinking the gun was lost, Macreynold turned toward his dying brother Ronnelo. Before he could reach him, Amador Lim shot Remo Frias in the right armpit. When Macreynold again grappled with Amador Lim for the gun, it went off and Macreynold was hit on his left testicle, but he was able to recover the gun. Amador Lim then ran away. Ronnelo Ginolos was pronounced dead on arrival at the Semirara Coal Corporation Hospital, while Remo Frias and Macreynold Ginolos survived because of timely medical attention. The defense claimed that one of the group of Remo Frias had an altercation with Amador Lim, hit him with a bottle of beer, and drew a gun, which Nelson Diego grabbed, causing the gun to fall and fire, hitting Ronnelo; Amador Lim claimed the gun exploded while he was grappling with it.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Amador Lim of double frustrated murder when no medical doctor testified that the wounds were grave enough to cause death without timely medical attention.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the offense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding damages to the private complainants in the absence of proof.

Applicable Provisions

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, on the stages of execution of felonies, provides:

Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

This provision frames the question of whether the crime was frustrated, since the victims survived because of timely medical attendance.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on murder, provides:

The crime of murder is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. 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; 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This provision supplies the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation that raise the killing to murder.

Article 61, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code provides:

When the penalty prescribed for the felony is a single indivisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed upon the principals in the frustrated stage.

This provision fixes the penalty for frustrated murder as one degree lower than that for consummated murder.

Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

This provision is the basis for the award of civil damages to the victims.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that intent to kill is an essential element of murder and homicide in all stages, and it is a specific intent that the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the intent to kill was present because the wounding of Remo Frias and Macreynold Ginolos arose from Amador Lim's act of firing a gun at Ronnelo Ginolos, which caused the latter's death. It is immaterial that the intent to kill was directed at the victim in the other criminal case, since one is responsible for the resulting crimes arising from an illegal act regardless of the fact that the victim was not the intended target. The Court cited People versus Delim, which teaches that intent to kill may be proved by the means used, the nature, location, and number of wounds, the conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing, the circumstances of the crime, and the motives of the accused. The Court thus affirmed the conviction for double frustrated murder.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery and evident premeditation were sufficiently proven. The evidence showed that Ronnelo Ginolos had an altercation with Amador Lim before the incident, that both accused were armed with guns, that they barged into the canteen and fired at Ronnelo Ginolos and dragged him out, and that Amador Lim shot Remo Frias and hit Macreynold Ginolos as they grappled for the gun. The Court concluded that Amador Lim alone was responsible for the wounding of the victims since Nelson Diego ran away before he could inflict any wounds.

On the third issue, the Court modified the damages. In the absence of concrete evidence proving actual expenses, it awarded each victim 25,000 pesos as temperate damages, since it was evident that both incurred medical expenses. It also modified the award of moral and exemplary damages consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, directing Amador Lim to pay each victim 40,000 pesos as moral damages and 20,000 pesos as exemplary damages. On the penalty, the Court held that under Article 61, paragraph 2, the penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal, with a range of twelve years and one day to twenty years. It modified the penalty to eight years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Doctrine

Intent to kill is a specific intent that must be proved by the prosecution in murder and homicide in all stages, whether consummated, frustrated, or attempted. It may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence, including the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location, and number of wounds, the conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing, the circumstances of the crime, and the motives of the accused. One who performs an illegal act is responsible for all the resulting crimes, even if the actual victim was not the intended target. Treachery and evident premeditation, as qualifying circumstances under Article 248, must be proved by the prosecution. Under Article 61, paragraph 2, the penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than that for consummated murder. Under Article 100, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, but actual damages require proof, and in its absence, temperate damages may be awarded.

Disposition

The appeal was partly granted. The conviction of Amador Lim for double frustrated murder was affirmed, but the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of eight years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and he was ordered to pay each victim 40,000 pesos as moral damages, 25,000 pesos as temperate damages, and 20,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that intent to kill is a specific intent provable by circumstantial evidence, and one is liable for all the consequences of an illegal act even against unintended victims. Examiners like to use this case on the frustrated stage of murder, the proof of intent to kill, the appreciation of treachery and evident premeditation, the computation of the penalty under Article 61, and the award of temperate damages in the absence of proof of actual expenses.