The Supreme Court, in Giovani Serrano y Cervantes v. People of the Philippines, clarified the distinction between attempted and frustrated homicide, emphasizing that for a crime to be considered frustrated homicide, there must be conclusive evidence that the victim’s injuries would have resulted in death without timely medical intervention. The Court ruled that the absence of such evidence leads to a conviction for attempted homicide. This decision impacts how criminal cases involving intent to kill are evaluated, ensuring that the severity of the crime aligns with the actual risk posed to the victim’s life. It sets a precedent for requiring explicit medical evidence to prove the potentially fatal nature of injuries in attempted homicide cases, affecting both prosecution and defense strategies.

Stabbed but Alive: When Does a Brawl Become Attempted Homicide?

This case originated from a brawl between rival groups at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, resulting in the stabbing of Anthony Galang. Giovani Serrano y Cervantes was charged with frustrated homicide for allegedly stabbing Galang. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Serrano guilty of frustrated homicide, but the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision to attempted homicide, leading Serrano to appeal to the Supreme Court. The central legal question revolved around whether Serrano’s actions constituted frustrated or merely attempted homicide, hinging on the evidence demonstrating intent to kill and the severity of the victim’s injuries.

At the heart of this case is the legal distinction between attempted and frustrated homicide under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. According to the law, a felony 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. Attempted felony occurs when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and 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 Supreme Court underscored that the critical factor in differentiating between frustrated and attempted homicide is the nature of the wound inflicted. It referenced the case of Palaganas v. People, where the Court outlined the distinctions:

1.) In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence; whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.

2.) In frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the other hand, in attempted felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous desistance.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that there must be independent proof demonstrating that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the victim’s death without timely medical intervention. The absence of such evidence casts doubt on the character of the wound, favoring the accused. In this case, while the victim testified that he saw his intestines protruding from the stab wound, the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence from medical experts regarding the wound’s potential lethality. This lack of concrete evidence led the Court to side with the CA’s decision of attempted homicide.

The Court also considered the element of intent to kill, which is essential in distinguishing homicide from mere physical injuries. Intent to kill, the Court clarified, is a state of mind inferred from the external manifestations and actions of the accused. In Rivera v. People, several factors were considered to determine the presence of intent to kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.

Applying these factors, the Court noted that Serrano used a knife to stab Galang in the abdomen while the victim was restrained. Serrano, along with others, continued to beat and stone Galang until he fell into a creek, inferring that Serrano intended to leave the victim for dead. The convergence of these circumstances established the intent to kill, leading to the classification of the crime as homicide, albeit in its attempted stage.

The Supreme Court tackled the differing conclusions of the lower courts regarding the stage of the crime. The RTC concluded that the crime reached the frustrated stage, considering the location of the stab wound and the victim’s referral to a medical center. In contrast, the CA determined that the crime was only at the attempted stage, given the absence of evidence proving that the stab wound was fatal enough to cause death. Citing People v. Matyaong, the Court discussed the importance of ascertaining the degree of injury sustained by a victim and its importance in determining criminal liability:

In considering the extent of injury done, account must be taken of the injury to the function of the various organs, and also the danger to life. A division into mortal and nonmortal wounds, if it could be made, would be very desirable; but the unexpected complications and the various extraneous causes which give gravity to the simplest cases, and, on the other hand, the favorable termination of some injuries apparently the most dangerous, render any such classification impracticable. The general classification into slight, severe, dangerous, and mortal wounds may be used, but the possibility of the slight wound terminating with the loss of the person’s life, and the apparently mortal ending with only a slight impairment of some function, must always be kept in mind. x x x

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the second element, that the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance. As such, the Court could not hold the petitioner liable for frustrated homicide. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, modifying the civil liabilities imposed on Serrano. The Court ordered Serrano to pay the victim Anthony Galang P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P10,000.00 as moral damages.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining whether the crime committed was frustrated homicide or attempted homicide, based on the evidence of intent to kill and the severity of the victim’s injuries.
What is the legal distinction between attempted and frustrated homicide?	Attempted homicide involves commencing the commission of a crime but not performing all acts of execution, while frustrated homicide involves performing all acts of execution that would result in the crime, but it doesn’t occur due to reasons independent of the perpetrator’s will.
What evidence is needed to prove frustrated homicide?	To prove frustrated homicide, there must be evidence showing that the victim sustained injuries that would have caused death without timely medical intervention.
How is intent to kill determined in homicide cases?	Intent to kill is determined by examining the actions and conduct of the accused, including the weapon used, the location and number of wounds, and the circumstances surrounding the crime.
What role does medical evidence play in distinguishing between attempted and frustrated homicide?	Medical evidence is crucial in determining the severity of the injuries and whether they were potentially fatal, which is necessary to prove frustrated homicide.
What factors did the Court consider in determining the stage of the crime?	The Court considered the nature of the wound, the absence of medical testimony on the gravity of the wound, and the lack of proof that the victim would have died without medical intervention.
What are temperate damages, and why were they awarded in this case?	Temperate damages are awarded when some pecuniary loss is proven, but the exact amount cannot be determined. The Court awarded temperate damages because the proven actual damages were less than P25,000.00.
What are moral damages, and why were they awarded in this case?	Moral damages are awarded for mental anguish, suffering, and similar injuries. They were awarded because the victim suffered physical injuries as a result of the crime.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Giovani Serrano y Cervantes v. People of the Philippines provides a clear framework for distinguishing between attempted and frustrated homicide, emphasizing the necessity of proving that the victim’s injuries were potentially fatal without medical intervention. This ruling serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances, ensuring that the legal classification aligns with the factual evidence. The requirement for explicit medical evidence will likely influence how prosecutions are built and defended in homicide cases.

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: Giovani Serrano y Cervantes v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 05, 2010