Gorospe vs. People

The intent to kill in frustrated homicide may be inferred from the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. A conviction for a frustrated felony requires that the offender performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a result but did not produce it due to a cause independent of the offender's will.

Roberto Gorospe and Miguel Beran were neighbors in Barrio Alitungtung, Amulung, Cagayan, with Gorospe being Beran's nephew-in-law. Prior to the incident, there was a land dispute between the parties, with Beran having filed a protest in the Bureau of Lands against Gorospe and his group, in which Gorospe and his co-protestees prevailed. The parties were engaged in agricultural work on adjacent lands in the area.

On December 9, 1974, at about 7 o'clock in the morning, Miguel Beran went to his farm in Bo. Alitungtung, Amulung, Cagayan, bringing along Andres Soriano, Nicolas Manayang, Alfredo Soriano, Mariano Malanot, Vicente Malanot, Deogracias Simangan, Ventura Soriano, Crispin Malanot, and Ruben Soriano, whom he had hired to clear his land preparatory to plowing and planting. They carried with them their tabas and calasiao (long bolos). While they were cutting weeds in the farm, petitioner Roberto Gorospe and his group — Hilario Siriban, Felix Ricardo, Pepito Maguddayao, Leonardo Gorospe, Domingo Cambri, and Roberto Lacsa — arrived at the farm.

From a distance of about 10 meters, Miguel noticed that the petitioner and his group were all armed with either a long bolo, slingshot, or buckshot (shotgun). As the petitioner approached Miguel, he drew his shotgun, aimed it at Miguel, and fired, hitting the latter on the chest. The petitioner's companion, Hilario Siriban, also fired his shotgun directed at Miguel. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner and his group ran away. Miguel went directly to the Police Station of Amulung, Cagayan, to report the incident, where he found out that the petitioner's group had reported the incident ahead of him. He was advised by a Sgt. Enriquez to proceed to the Cagayan Provincial Hospital for treatment.

Dr. Rafael Sumabat, a medical specialist at the Cagayan Provincial Hospital, treated Miguel for gunshot wounds on his chest and left side of the body. The Medical Certificate (Exh. A) showed that the gunshot on the chest was caused by a pellet from a buckshot or shotgun — a round wound with lacerated borders about 3 to 4 cms. in diameter — and a second gunshot wound on the left side of the chest above the nipple near the armpit. The wounds would heal from 7 to 10 days.

The petitioner testified in his behalf, claiming that on the day of the incident, he was sharpening his bolo to use in the field for cutting grasses. He and his five companions started for the farm, which was less than a kilometer away. When the group of Miguel Beran, numbering 11 in all, arrived, they were ordered to leave the place but did not. According to the petitioner, Miguel Beran fired a warning shot from a long gun, after which a free-for-all fight or rumble followed, lasting 30 minutes, consisting of an exchange of sling shots. The petitioner denied having shot Miguel Beran and denied having chased the complainant. He stated that his nose suffered a hematoma caused by a sling shot, examined by Dr. Donato, who did not give any medical certificate. The petitioner also presented Pepito Maguddayao and Leonardo Gorospe to corroborate his testimony, as well as Sgt. Juan Lingan, the Amulung Police Station Commander, who testified that both groups reported the shooting incident to the police, with the petitioner's group doing so ahead of the private complainant's group.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of frustrated homicide.
• Incredibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner contended that the prosecution witnesses were all companions of Miguel Beran and their statements conflicted with each other, creating doubt that should be construed in favor of the accused.
• Lack of Intent to Kill: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in appreciating that he had the intention to kill the private complainant, despite the medical certification showing only a 7 to 10-day healing period.
• Credibility of Defense Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the trial court failed to consider the testimonies of his witnesses, who were credible and not related to him by consanguinity or affinity.
• Excessive Penalty: Petitioner argued that the penalty imposed was too high considering the absence of aggravating circumstances.
• Delay in Reporting: Petitioner specifically assailed Andres Soriano's credibility, noting that Soriano reported the incident and gave his statement to police investigators only on December 18, 1974, or nine days after the shooting, after visiting his uncle, the victim, at the hospital.
• Self-Defense: Petitioner averred that he was able to prove all the requisites of the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
• Proper Classification of Offense: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill, making him guilty only of slight or less serious physical injuries.

• Positive Identification: The prosecution maintained that the victim Miguel Beran and witness Andres Soriano positively identified the petitioner as the one who shot Beran, and that all three were neighbors who saw each other at a distance of only 10 meters in broad daylight.
• Delay in Reporting Explained: The Solicitor General argued that the nine-day delay in Soriano's reporting was excusable given the fear of reprisal from townmates involved in the crime, and that delay in reporting crimes in rural areas is well known.
• Police Blotter Entries: The prosecution argued that entries in a police blotter should not be given significance or probative value as they do not constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of frustrated homicide.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Andres Soriano was rendered incredible by his nine-day delay in reporting the incident to police authorities.
• Intent to Kill: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established that the petitioner intended to kill the victim.
• Self-Defense: Whether the petitioner validly invoked the justifying circumstance of self-defense.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of proof, inclusive of physical evidence and the collective testimony of the victim and Soriano, to prove that the petitioner shot the victim.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Yes. The delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about the crime does not render their testimonies unworthy of credence, as the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.
• Intent to Kill: Yes. The nature of the weapon used and the location of the wounds demonstrate the petitioner's intent to kill the victim.
• Self-Defense: No. The petitioner's contention that he shot the victim in self-defense is inconsistent with his testimony that the victim sustained his wounds during a rumble and his denial of having inflicted the gunshot wound on the victim.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court agreed with the CA that the prosecution successfully proved the petitioner's culpability beyond moral certainty of doubt. The victim Miguel Beran positively identified the petitioner as the perpetrator, testifying that the petitioner approached him, suddenly drew his gun, pointed it at him, and fired, causing injuries to his chest. Witness Andres Soriano likewise positively identified the petitioner as the one who shot Beran. The Court noted that Beran and Soriano could not have been mistaken in identifying the petitioner because all three were neighbors at Barrio Alitungtung, the petitioner was Beran's nephew-in-law, and both witnesses saw the petitioner at a distance of only 10 meters away in broad daylight.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court held that the delayed reporting by witnesses does not render their testimonies unworthy of credence, citing People vs. Navarro. The delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. The Solicitor General's argument was adopted: considering that the petitioner's townmates were involved in the commission of the crime, the fear of reprisal was ever present and a valid excuse for momentary silence. The Court also held that entries in a police blotter should not be given significance or probative value as they do not constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof, citing Santiago vs. CA. The petitioner's mere denial could not prevail against the positive and straightforward testimonies of the victim and Soriano. The fact that Soriano first visited the victim at the hospital and that the victim was the Barangay Captain did not render Soriano's testimony incredible, as it is natural for Soriano to visit his relative at the hospital, and it is unnatural for a close relative of the victim to tergiversate the truth and ascribe the crime to a person who is not the perpetrator.

• Intent to Kill: The Court affirmed the trial court's characterization of the felonious assault as frustrated homicide. The intent to kill is usually shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. A conviction for a frustrated felony requires that the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a result but nevertheless did not produce it due to a cause independent of the offender's will. It was undisputed that the petitioner fired his gun point-blank at Beran, hitting him at the breast and producing wounds on the level of the 3rd rib and on the umbilicous region, with the penetrating wound on the chest located at the mid lung zone. The nature of the weapon used and the location of the wounds speak for themselves of the petitioner's intent to finish off Beran, who would have died if no timely medical attendance was given. The lower court observed that the wound on the chest was penetrating, located at the mid lung zone, with the trajectory of the pellet towards the lung, a vital organ of the human body; had there been no injection of anti-tetanus and anti-biotic, the patient could have suffered infection or bleeding which could cause death.

• Self-Defense: The Court held that the petitioner's contention that he shot the victim in self-defense is inconsistent with his testimony that the victim sustained his wounds during a rumble and his denial of having inflicted the gunshot wound on the victim. One who invokes self-defense in a shooting incident thereby admits having shot the victim deliberately.

• Intent to Kill in Frustrated Homicide — The intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. In this case, the petitioner fired a shotgun point-blank at the victim, hitting him in the chest at the mid lung zone, demonstrating intent to kill.

• Frustrated Felony — A conviction for a frustrated felony requires that the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a result but nevertheless did not produce it due to a cause independent of the offender's will. The petitioner performed all acts of execution by firing at the victim, but death did not result due to timely medical attendance.

• Self-Defense and Admission of Shooting — One who invokes self-defense in a shooting incident thereby admits having shot the victim deliberately. The petitioner's claim of self-defense was inconsistent with his denial of having inflicted the gunshot wound.

• Delay in Reporting a Crime — The delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about the crime does not render their testimonies unworthy of credence, as the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case, or by fear of reprisal.

• Police Blotter Entries — Entries in a police blotter should not be given significance or probative value as they do not constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof.

• "In a frank, candid and straightforward manner, private complainant Miguel Beran positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime." — This passage establishes the prosecution's key evidence: the victim's positive identification of the petitioner as the shooter, which the Court found credible and sufficient for conviction.

• "The delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about the crime does not render their testimonies unworthy of credence. For the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case." — This passage articulates the rule on delayed reporting by witnesses, rejecting the petitioner's attack on Soriano's credibility based on his nine-day delay in giving his statement.

• "Usually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted." — This passage states the controlling doctrine for determining intent to kill in frustrated homicide cases, which the Court applied to the facts of the case.

• "One who invokes self-defense in a shooting incident thereby admits having shot the victim deliberately." — This passage rejects the petitioner's inconsistent defense, holding that invoking self-defense necessarily admits the deliberate act of shooting.

• People vs. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331 — Cited for the rule that delayed reporting by witnesses does not render their testimonies unworthy of credence, as the delay may be explained by natural reticence and abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.
• People vs. Catubig, 203 SCRA 643 — Cited for the proposition that fear of reprisal from townmates involved in the commission of the crime is a valid excuse for a witness's momentary silence.
• People vs. Peran, 215 SCRA 152 — Cited in support of the rule that fear of reprisal is a valid excuse for delay in reporting a crime.
• People vs. Belen, 194 SCRA 447 — Cited for the principle that delay in reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual event in rural areas is well known.
• People vs. Carizo, 233 SCRA 687 — Cited for the proposition that delay in reporting cannot be taken against a witness.
• Santiago vs. CA, 295 SCRA 334 — Cited for the rule that entries in a police blotter should not be given significance or probative value as they do not constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof.
• People vs. Mercado, 304 SCRA 504 (1999) — Cited in the decision's footnotes.
• People vs. Pardua, 360 SCRA 41 (2001) — Cited in the decision's footnotes.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining and penalizing homicide, under which the petitioner was convicted of frustrated homicide.
• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining frustrated felonies, requiring that the offender performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a result but nevertheless did not produce it due to a cause independent of the offender's will.
• Article 50, Revised Penal Code — The provision relating to the penalty for frustrated homicide, as referenced in the trial court's dispositive portion.

Puno (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concurred.