Intent to Kill is Key: Differentiating Attempted Murder from Murder

G.R. No. 106582, July 31, 1997

Imagine a scenario: a heated argument escalates, someone is struck, but the injury isn’t immediately fatal. Is it attempted murder or something less? This case highlights the crucial difference between murder and attempted murder, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent to kill and the direct causal link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s death. The Supreme Court, in this instance, carefully dissected the evidence to determine if the accused’s actions met the threshold for a murder conviction.

In People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Balderas y Cabusog, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the accused, Ruperto Balderas, was guilty of murder or a lesser offense. The case turned on the nature of the injuries inflicted and the prosecution’s ability to prove that Balderas’ actions directly caused the victim’s death with the intent to kill.

Legal Context: The Nuances of Murder and Attempted Murder

Under Philippine law, murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime is characterized by the presence of qualifying circumstances, such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. These circumstances elevate the crime of homicide to murder, carrying a heavier penalty.

Attempted murder, on the other hand, occurs when the offender commences the commission of murder directly by overt acts but 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. The intent to kill (animus interficiendi) must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines an attempted felony:
“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 constitute the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.“

The distinction is crucial because the penalties differ significantly. Murder carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, while attempted murder carries a penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony.

Case Breakdown: A Night at the Dance

The incident occurred during a dance in Manjuyod, Negros Oriental. Ruperto Balderas, along with companions, attended the dance where an altercation ensued between one of his companions and the victim’s brother. During the commotion, Gilbert Cadiente, the victim, was struck with a cane knife. He later died, but the cause of death became a point of contention.

• The Prosecution’s Case: The prosecution presented a witness who testified that Balderas struck Cadiente on the back of the head with a cane knife.
• The Defense’s Case: Balderas claimed alibi, stating he was not at the scene when the fatal blow was struck.
• Medical Evidence: The medical examiner identified three wounds, but the most fatal was a stab wound to the chest, which the prosecution failed to directly link to Balderas.

The trial court found Balderas guilty of murder, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The High Court emphasized that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Balderas inflicted the fatal stab wound. The only established fact was that Balderas struck the victim on the back of the head, an injury deemed not fatal by the medical examiner.

“The Court cannot convict accused-appellant of murder on this “remote” possibility that Injury No. 3 could have caused accused-appellant’s death. Indeed, the prosecution’s evidence in this regard, consisting of Dr. Baldado, Jr.’s testimony, fails to establish that the act of the accused-appellant produced the injury constituting the penal offense for which he stands convicted, i.e., murder.“

Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of conspiracy and the failure to establish a concerted action to kill the victim. “At any rate, conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In this case not only was there no evidence of prior agreement. There was also no showing of concerted action taken to kill Gilbert Cadiente.“

However, the Court did not acquit Balderas entirely. His alibi was weak, and the evidence showed he was present at the scene and did strike the victim. The Court concluded that Balderas was guilty of attempted murder, as his actions demonstrated an intent to kill, but the act was not consummated due to factors beyond his control. The attack was sudden and treacherous, qualifying it as attempted murder.

Practical Implications: Lessons for Future Cases

This case underscores the importance of meticulous evidence gathering and presentation in criminal cases. It highlights the need to establish a clear causal link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s death. Moreover, it emphasizes the significance of proving intent to kill, especially in distinguishing between murder and lesser offenses.

Key Lessons:

• Causation is Crucial: The prosecution must prove that the accused’s actions directly caused the victim’s death.
• Intent Matters: Establishing intent to kill is essential for a murder conviction.
• Alibi Must Be Solid: A weak or inconsistent alibi can undermine the defense’s case.
• Evidence is Key: Meticulous gathering and presentation of evidence are paramount.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the main difference between murder and attempted murder?

A: Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought, while attempted murder is when someone intends to commit murder and takes steps towards it, but the act is not completed.

Q: What is the penalty for attempted murder in the Philippines?

A: The penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated murder, as outlined in the Revised Penal Code.

Q: What does ‘intent to kill’ mean in legal terms?

A: ‘Intent to kill’ (animus interficiendi) refers to the mental state of the accused, where they deliberately intended to cause the death of the victim.

Q: How can ‘intent to kill’ be proven in court?

A: ‘Intent to kill’ can be proven through various means, such as the nature of the weapon used, the location and severity of the injuries inflicted, and the actions and statements of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the act.

Q: What role does medical evidence play in murder cases?

A: Medical evidence is crucial as it provides insights into the cause of death, the nature and extent of injuries, and whether the injuries were the direct and proximate cause of death.

Q: What is the significance of ‘treachery’ in a murder case?

A: Treachery is a qualifying circumstance that elevates homicide to murder. It means the offender employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tended directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Q: If someone is present at the scene of a crime, does that automatically make them guilty?

A: No, mere presence at the scene of a crime does not automatically establish guilt. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person participated in the commission of the crime.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.