People vs. Labiaga

A conviction for frustrated murder requires proof that the victim's wound would have been fatal absent timely medical intervention; absent such proof, the proper conviction is for attempted murder. Where the attending physician himself testified that the victim's injuries were "not serious" and the victim was "ambulatory and not in distress," the element of fatality indispensable to frustrated murder is lacking.

Regie Labiaga, alias "Banok," together with a certain Alias Balatong Barcenas and Cristy Demapanag, was charged in two separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Branch 66, for the shooting of Gregorio Conde and his daughter Judy Conde on 23 December 2000 in Barangay Malayu-an, Ajuy, Iloilo. Both Informations alleged murder and frustrated murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm, attended by treachery and evident premeditation. Barcenas remained at large; Labiaga and Demapanag pleaded not guilty and were tried jointly.

At around 7:00 p.m. on 23 December 2000, Gregorio Conde and his two daughters, Judy and Glenelyn Conde, were at their home in Barangay Malayu-an, Ajuy, Iloilo. Gregorio stepped outside while Glenelyn remained in their store, which formed part of their house. According to the prosecution, appellant Regie Labiaga, positioned approximately five meters away, shot Gregorio. Gregorio called out to Judy for help. When Judy and Glenelyn rushed to his aid, appellant shot Judy in the abdomen. The two other accused—Alias Balatong Barcenas and Cristy Demapanag—were standing behind appellant. Appellant then remarked, "she is already dead," and all three fled the scene.

Gregorio and Judy were taken to the Sara District Hospital. Judy was pronounced dead on arrival. Dr. Jeremiah Obañana conducted the autopsy and reported the cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to Cardiac Tamponade due to gunshot wound." Dr. Edwin Jose Figura examined Gregorio and found a gunshot wound measuring one centimeter in diameter on his right forearm, along with abrasion wounds and hematoma formation on his right shoulder. Gregorio made a full recovery after treatment.

Appellant admitted being present during the shooting but invoked self-defense. He claimed that Gregorio, armed with a shotgun, challenged him to a fight and attempted to shoot him, but the shotgun jammed. During the ensuing struggle to wrest the shotgun from Gregorio, the weapon fired. Appellant claimed he did not know whether anyone was hit. Demapanag, for his part, claimed he was at the D&D Ricemill, approximately fourteen kilometers from the crime scene, a claim corroborated by his brother Frederick.

The RTC acquitted Demapanag for insufficiency of evidence but convicted appellant of murder and frustrated murder. The CA-Cebu affirmed the conviction and added awards of moral and exemplary damages. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, with appellant contesting the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Appellant impugned the RTC's Joint Decision, arguing that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Self-Defense: Appellant maintained that he acted in self-defense, claiming Gregorio Conde initiated the aggression by challenging him to a fight with a shotgun that jammed, and that the shotgun discharged accidentally during the ensuing struggle.

• Self-Defense: Whether appellant's claim of self-defense is sustainable given the evidence on record.
• Treachery: Whether treachery was properly appreciated in the commission of the crimes.
• Frustrated vs. Attempted Murder: Whether appellant should be convicted of frustrated murder or merely attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 2002-1777, given the nature of the victim's gunshot wound.
• Damages: Whether the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be modified.

• Self-Defense: No. The claim of self-defense was correctly rejected, appellant having failed to present corroborating evidence and having made no report to authorities of the alleged unlawful aggression.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery was properly appreciated, the victims being unarmed when shot with a 12-gauge shotgun, denying them any opportunity to defend themselves.
• Frustrated vs. Attempted Murder: The conviction was downgraded to attempted murder. The prosecution failed to prove that Gregorio Conde's gunshot wound was mortal, the attending physician having testified that the injuries were "not serious" and the patient was "ambulatory and not in distress."
• Damages: Yes, modified upward. Civil indemnity in the murder case was increased to ₱75,000.00 and exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00; moral damages of ₱50,000.00 were sustained. For attempted murder, ₱40,000.00 as moral damages and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages were awarded.

• Self-Defense: When an accused admits killing or injuring a person but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove the elements of his defense by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant's version was uncorroborated and self-serving, insufficient to overcome the positive identification by the prosecution's two principal witnesses, Gregorio and Glenelyn Conde. Appellant's failure to report Gregorio's alleged unlawful aggression to the police, and his failure to inform authorities upon arrest that the shooting was accidental, further belied his claim. The RTC's assessment of witness credibility, affirmed by the CA-Cebu, was sustained, no arbitrariness or misapprehension of facts having been shown.

• Treachery: A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist. The existence of treachery is not solely determined by the type of weapon used; it suffices that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure execution of the crime and render the victim defenseless. The Condes were unarmed when shot with a 12-gauge shotgun, which undoubtedly denied them any chance to fend off the offender. Treachery was thus properly appreciated in both crimes.

• Frustrated vs. Attempted Murder: Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all acts of execution that would produce the felony but it does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator's will. An attempt occurs when the offender commences the commission of a felony by overt acts and does not perform all acts of execution. In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. Dr. Edwin Jose Figura testified that Gregorio was "ambulatory and not in distress" and that his injuries were "not serious." Since the gunshot wound was not proven to be mortal, the conviction was downgraded to attempted murder. Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated murder under Article 248, resulting in an indeterminate sentence of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional (medium) to eight years and one day of prision mayor (medium).

• Damages: In light of recent jurisprudence, the Court deemed it proper to increase the amounts of damages. For the murder case, civil indemnity was raised to ₱75,000.00 and exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00, with moral damages sustained at ₱50,000.00. For the attempted murder case, ₱40,000.00 as moral damages and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages were awarded.

• Burden of evidence shifts to accused in self-defense — When the accused admits killing or injuring a person but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense. The Court applied this doctrine to reject appellant's uncorroborated, self-serving claim of self-defense, which could not prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses.

• Credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court — The evaluation of witness credibility is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under examination. The Court sustained the RTC's credibility findings, as affirmed by the CA-Cebu, since they were not tainted with arbitrariness or misapprehension of facts.

• Distinction between frustrated and attempted felony — In a frustrated felony, the offender has performed all acts of execution which should produce the felony, and the non-accomplishment is due to a cause independent of the perpetrator's will. In an attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission by overt acts and does not perform all acts of execution. The Court applied this distinction to downgrade the conviction from frustrated murder to attempted murder, because the prosecution failed to prove that the victim's wound was mortal.

• Frustrated murder requires proof of mortal wound — In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound would have caused death without timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of attempted murder, not frustrated murder. The Court applied this rule where the attending physician testified the victim was "ambulatory and not in distress" and the injuries were "not serious."

• "If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound sustained would have caused the victim's death without timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder." — This passage articulates the controlling rule for distinguishing frustrated from attempted murder and is the ratio decidendi for downgrading the conviction in Criminal Case No. 2002-1777.

• "When the accused admits killing a person but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense." — This formulation, quoted from People vs. Damitan, states the doctrinal basis for rejecting appellant's uncorroborated self-defense claim.

• "The use of a 12-gauge shotgun against two unarmed victims is undoubtedly treacherous, as it denies the victims the chance to fend off the offender." — This passage applies the elements of treachery to the specific facts of the case, confirming the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance.

• People vs. Damitan, 423 Phil. 113 (2001) — Cited for the doctrine that when an accused admits killing but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused; followed in rejecting appellant's self-defense claim.
• People vs. Mangune, G.R. No. 186463, 14 November 2012, 685 SCRA 578 — Cited for the principle that credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court; followed to sustain the RTC's factual findings as affirmed by the CA.
• Serrano vs. People, G.R. No. 175023, 5 July 2010, 623 SCRA 322 — Cited for the distinction between frustrated and attempted felonies; followed to downgrade the conviction from frustrated murder to attempted murder.
• People vs. Costales, 424 Phil. 321 (2002) — Cited for the rule that frustrated murder requires proof that the wound would have been fatal absent timely medical intervention; followed in holding that the conviction should be for attempted murder.
• People vs. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044, 6 December 2010, 636 SCRA 533 — Cited for the updated amounts of civil indemnity and exemplary damages in murder cases; followed in increasing the awards.

• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines the stages of felonies (consummated, frustrated, and attempted). Applied to distinguish between frustrated and attempted murder based on whether all acts of execution were performed and whether the wound was mortal.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated murder under Article 248. Applied to determine the indeterminate penalty for attempted murder.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder. Served as the reference provision for computing the penalty two degrees lower for attempted murder.
• Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law — Requires the court to impose an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term proper under the Revised Penal Code and a minimum within the range of the penalty next lower. Applied to fix the indeterminate sentence for attempted murder.

Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose C. Mendoza, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred.