In Bonifacio Nieva y Montero v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bonifacio Nieva for frustrated homicide. This ruling clarifies the crucial element of intent to kill in distinguishing frustrated homicide from mere physical injuries. The Court emphasized that the use of a deadly weapon, the nature of the victim’s wounds, and the circumstances surrounding the assault all point to Nieva’s intent to end Judy Ignacio’s life, reinforcing the severity of the crime beyond simple physical harm.

Gun Drawn, Intent Revealed: When a Quarrel Escalates to Frustrated Homicide

The case began on October 28, 2005, when Bonifacio Nieva shot Judy Ignacio, following a heated argument about a homeowners association electrification project. The prosecution presented evidence that Nieva drew a .357 caliber revolver, shouted threats at Judy, and fired multiple times, hitting her in the leg. Judy, who was then the President of the Catmon Homeowners Association, had told Nieva that the matter was being handled by the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). This prompted Nieva’s outburst and subsequent actions. Luna Ignacio and Raymundo Delatavo, eyewitnesses to the event, testified that Nieva pointed the gun at Judy and fired.

Dr. Dindohope Serrano, the attending physician, testified that the gunshot wound could have been fatal without timely medical intervention. Nieva was initially charged with frustrated murder, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of frustrated homicide, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Nieva appealed, arguing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, claiming the shooting was accidental, and asserting a lack of intent to kill. These arguments formed the crux of his defense, which the Supreme Court ultimately rejected.

The Supreme Court addressed Nieva’s claim of inconsistencies in the testimonies of Judy, Luna, and Raymundo. The Court reiterated the principle that evaluating witness credibility is primarily the role of trial courts, which have the advantage of observing witnesses’ demeanor. It noted that minor inconsistencies do not necessarily undermine the credibility of witnesses; instead, they can reinforce it by suggesting authenticity. In People v. Malate, the Court emphasized this point:

Furthermore, accused-appellant cannot plausibly bank on the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant to discredit her account of the incident. Even if they do exist, minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or rehearsed. Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court found that the inconsistencies regarding the gun’s position during the shooting were minor and did not detract from the witnesses’ overall credibility. The Court also dismissed Nieva’s claim that the shooting was accidental. Citing Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court explained that an accident exempts a person from criminal liability only if it occurs while performing a lawful act with due care and without fault or intention. Nieva’s act of drawing a gun and pointing it at Judy was deemed unlawful, negating the possibility of an accident. In People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., the Court had previously stated that drawing a weapon during a quarrel, absent self-defense, constitutes at least light threats, which is an unlawful act.

The Court then examined the critical element of intent to kill, distinguishing frustrated homicide from physical injuries. The Court referenced Rivera v. People, outlining factors to consider:

(a) the means used by the malefactors; (b) the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (c) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; (d) the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and (e) the motives of the accused.

Applying these factors, the Court found that Nieva’s use of a deadly weapon, the nature of Judy’s wound, and Nieva’s conduct before and during the incident all indicated an intent to kill. The fact that the gun jammed several times before finally firing demonstrated a persistence and determination to harm Judy. The Court emphasized that the timely medical intervention did not negate the intent to kill but rather prevented the completion of the crime, resulting in a conviction for frustrated homicide rather than consummated homicide.

The Supreme Court affirmed the elements of frustrated homicide:

first, the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; second, the victim sustained a fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and third, none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present.

Finally, the Court adjusted the award of damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Citing People v. Jugueta, the Court modified the moral damages and awarded civil indemnity, both set at P30,000.00, and imposed an interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality until fully paid. This adjustment reflects a standardized approach to awarding damages in cases of frustrated crimes, ensuring consistency and fairness in the application of the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Bonifacio Nieva had the intent to kill Judy Ignacio, which is essential in distinguishing frustrated homicide from physical injuries. The Court examined the circumstances surrounding the shooting to determine Nieva’s intent.
What is frustrated homicide?	Frustrated homicide occurs when the accused intends to kill the victim, performs all the acts of execution that would produce the crime, but the crime is not produced due to causes independent of the accused’s will, such as timely medical intervention. Intent to kill is a key element.
What evidence did the Court consider to determine intent to kill?	The Court considered the use of a deadly weapon (a gun), the nature and location of the victim’s wounds, the accused’s conduct before, during, and after the shooting, and any existing motives. These factors collectively helped establish Nieva’s intent.
Why was Nieva not convicted of frustrated murder?	The RTC found that the shooting was preceded by an argument, negating the presence of evident premeditation and treachery, which are qualifying circumstances for murder. Thus, the charge was reduced to frustrated homicide.
What is the significance of ‘accident’ as a defense?	Accident, as an exempting circumstance, requires that the person was performing a lawful act with due care and without intention of causing harm. Since Nieva was not performing a lawful act when he drew and fired the gun, the defense of accident did not apply.
How do inconsistencies in witness testimonies affect a case?	Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies can actually bolster credibility, suggesting that the testimonies were not rehearsed or contrived. However, major inconsistencies that cast doubt on the material facts can undermine a witness’s credibility.
What damages were awarded to the victim?	The Supreme Court awarded Judy Ignacio P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as civil indemnity. Additionally, an interest of six percent (6%) per annum was imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of the decision until full payment.
What was Nieva’s main defense?	Nieva argued that the shooting was accidental and that he did not intend to kill Judy. He claimed that the gun went off during a struggle and that he only intended to scare her, not to cause serious harm.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bonifacio Nieva y Montero v. People underscores the importance of proving intent to kill in frustrated homicide cases. The ruling serves as a reminder that the use of deadly weapons and the circumstances surrounding an assault can be critical in determining criminal liability. This case helps clarify how courts assess the element of intent, distinguishing between serious attempts to end a life and actions that result in mere physical injury.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Bonifacio Nieva y Montero, G.R. No. 188751, November 16, 2016