The Supreme Court held that Rolly Adame was guilty of frustrated homicide, affirming the lower courts’ decisions but modifying the penalty. The ruling clarifies that intent to kill is a crucial element, inferred from the weapon used, the nature of the attack, and the victim’s injuries. This case underscores that even if death is averted due to timely medical intervention, the perpetrator can still be convicted of frustrated homicide if intent to kill is proven beyond reasonable doubt, impacting how assault cases are prosecuted and defended in the Philippines.

Can a Gunshot Wound Prove Intent to Kill? The Case of Adame vs. People

This case revolves around the shooting of Manolito Lacsamana by Rolly Adame. The central question is whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove that Adame intended to kill Lacsamana, thereby justifying a conviction for frustrated homicide rather than mere physical injuries. The incident occurred in Barangay Wawa, Batangas City, where a confrontation escalated into gunfire, leaving Lacsamana with a severe stomach wound. This analysis delves into the details of the case, examining the evidence, the court’s reasoning, and the legal principles that underpin the decision.

The prosecution’s case hinged on establishing that Adame’s actions demonstrated a clear intent to kill. Witnesses testified that Adame fired a gun at Lacsamana, hitting him in the stomach. The nature of the weapon used, a handgun, and the location of the wound, the abdomen, were critical factors in determining Adame’s intent. The Supreme Court emphasized this point, stating that:

Here, the intent to kill is at once evident from the weapon used by petitioner, in this case, a gun. He shot Manolito in the stomach, with the slug resting in the abdomen near the spinal column. It damaged the victim’s ilium, urinary bladder, and rectum. Indeed, the nature of the weapon used for the attack and the direction at which it was aimed unmistakably showed petitioner’s intent to kill.

The defense argued that the evidence was inconsistent and that Adame lacked motive. However, the Court dismissed these claims, finding that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not detract from their credibility. Furthermore, the Court noted that proof of motive is not essential when the identity of the accused is clearly established. The Court stated:

Proof of motive is immaterial when the identity of the petitioner has been clearly established.

Adame’s actions after the shooting also played a significant role in the Court’s decision. Evidence showed that he fled the scene immediately after the incident. This flight was interpreted as an indication of guilt. The Court of Appeals noted:

Appellant could not be telling the truth that because he was “frightened, he closed the door of his house and immediately went to sleep”. For, when SPO2 Mario Panaligan went to his residence on November 8, 1995, at past 9:00 in the evening, to investigate the shooting incident, he noticed that the unit was vacant, the lights, windows and door were open, but appellant was not there, and that he was informed by people outside the compound that appellant “hurriedly left the place”. Thus, if appellant indeed went to sleep, he should be at home sleeping, but he was nowhere to be found. His act of leaving his residence posthaste could not be the actuation of a man who claims to be innocent of any wrongdoing.

The crime of frustrated homicide is defined by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the act of killing another person without the circumstances that would qualify the act as murder or parricide. In relation to Article 50, the penalty for a frustrated crime is one degree lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony. The Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 249. Homicide.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime.—The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in a frustrated felony.

The key element that distinguishes frustrated homicide from other forms of assault is the intent to kill. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle, citing People vs. Fortich, emphasizing that intent to kill must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the Court found that the intent to kill was evident based on the weapon used and the location of the wound.

Regarding the appropriate penalty, the Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court determined that Adame should be sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of damages, noting that while the lower courts awarded actual damages, there was no documentary evidence to support the claim. Therefore, the Court awarded temperate damages in the amount of P20,000 and moral damages in the amount of P30,000.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that Rolly Adame intended to kill Manolito Lacsamana, justifying a conviction for frustrated homicide. The Court needed to determine if the evidence supported the claim of intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.
What evidence did the prosecution present to prove intent to kill?	The prosecution presented evidence that Adame used a handgun to shoot Lacsamana in the stomach. The nature of the weapon and the location of the wound were considered strong indicators of intent to kill.
How did the Court interpret Adame’s flight from the scene?	Adame’s flight from the scene immediately after the shooting was interpreted as an indication of guilt. The Court viewed this action as inconsistent with the behavior of someone innocent of wrongdoing.
Why was Adame not convicted of attempted homicide?	The Court found that Adame performed all the acts of execution necessary to cause Lacsamana’s death. However, Lacsamana survived due to timely medical intervention, making the crime frustrated homicide rather than attempted homicide.
What is the difference between frustrated homicide and serious physical injuries?	The key difference lies in the intent to kill. Frustrated homicide requires proof of intent to kill, while serious physical injuries only require proof of intent to inflict serious bodily harm.
What is the significance of the weapon used in determining intent to kill?	The nature of the weapon used is a significant factor in determining intent to kill. Using a deadly weapon, such as a firearm, is often seen as strong evidence of an intent to kill, especially when aimed at a vital part of the body.
What damages were awarded in this case?	The Supreme Court awarded P20,000 as temperate damages and P30,000 as moral damages. The Court did not award actual damages due to the lack of supporting receipts.
What is the penalty for frustrated homicide under the Revised Penal Code?	The penalty for frustrated homicide is one degree lower than that prescribed for consummated homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Adame to a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

This case serves as an important reminder of the legal principles governing frustrated homicide in the Philippines. The ruling underscores the importance of proving intent to kill and highlights the factors that courts consider when determining criminal liability in assault cases. Understanding these principles is essential for both legal professionals and the public.

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: Adame v. CA, G.R. No. 139830, November 21, 2002