People vs. Mabug-at

Intent to kill may be inferred from the attendant circumstances of the act, such as aiming at the head, and the qualifying circumstance of treachery is not negated by the fact that the bullet struck an unintended victim.

Ramon Mabug-at and Juana Buralo were sweethearts, but their relationship was strained by Juana's jealousy over Mabug-at's frequent visits to one Carmen. On August 9, 1925, Mabug-at invited Juana for a walk, but she refused and later sent a note of excuse. Two days later, on the night of August 11, Mabug-at went to the threshold of Cirilo Banyan's house, where Juana had gone to attend a devotion. Armed with a revolver, he asked Francisco Abellon to call Juana downstairs, and when Abellon refused, Mabug-at threatened to kill anyone who attempted to defend her.

Mabug-at waited until Juana and her niece, Perfecta Buralo, came downstairs and began walking toward their adjacent house. He silently followed them. As the two girls were going upstairs, Mabug-at, standing at the foot of the stairway, fired a shot from his revolver. The bullet struck Perfecta, passing through the posterior region of her neck and exiting through her left eye, completely destroying it. Perfecta survived due to proper medical attention and testified at the trial.

The defense denied that Mabug-at intended to kill, arguing that the crime was merely the discharge of a firearm with injuries. The trial court, however, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder.

• Classification of Crime: Appellant argued that the crime proven was merely the discharge of a firearm with injuries, contending that it was not proven that he had the intention to kill.
• Credibility of Evidence: Appellant maintained that the trial court erred in not giving credit to the evidence presented by the defense and in finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Classification of the Crime: Whether the crime committed is frustrated murder or merely the discharge of a firearm with injuries.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder.

• Classification of the Crime: Yes. The crime is frustrated murder, intent to kill having been conclusively established by the attendant circumstances, and treachery having been proven.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the facts enumerated constituting the crime of frustrated murder.

• Classification of the Crime: Intent to kill was established not merely by the act of firing but by the attendant circumstances: the strained relations between the accused and Juana, his disappointment at her refusal, his armed pursuit, and his aiming at the head. Relying on United States vs. Montenegro, the Court held that where a revolver is discharged point-blank at the most vital parts of the body, the intent to kill is established beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the fact that the bullet hit Perfecta instead of the intended target, Juana, does not alter criminal liability under Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code (error in person). While evident premeditation was not considered a qualifying circumstance because the intended target was Juana and not the actual victim Perfecta, treachery was proven. The accused fired at the victims while their backs were turned, employing means that insured the execution of the crime without risk to himself. Citing a Spanish Supreme Court ruling, the Court held that the accidental circumstance that a person other than the one intended was injured does not modify the elements constituting murder qualified by treachery. The crime is frustrated murder because the accused performed all acts of execution that would have produced murder, but it did not produce death due to causes independent of his will (Article 3, Penal Code).
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The facts proven beyond reasonable doubt constitute the crime of frustrated murder. Aside from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, no other aggravating circumstance was found, but the evidence sufficiently supports the conviction.

• Intent to Kill from Attendant Circumstances — Intent to kill may be inferred not merely from the act of discharging a firearm but from all attendant circumstances, such as the relations between the parties, prior disputes, and the targeting of vital parts of the body. The Court applied this by considering Mabug-at's jealousy, his armed pursuit, and his aiming at the head to conclude that he intended to kill.
• Error in Person (Aberratio Ictus) — The fact that a person received a shot intended for another does not alter the criminal liability of the offender. The Court applied Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code to hold Mabug-at liable for the injuries to Perfecta even though he intended to shoot Juana.
• Treachery in Error in Person — Treachery is not negated by the fact that the bullet struck an unintended victim. The Court applied the doctrine from a Spanish Supreme Court ruling, holding that the accidental circumstance of hitting a different person does not modify the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as the offender employed means to insure the crime's execution without risk to himself.

• "The fact that a person received the shot which was in-tended for another, does not alter his criminal liability. (Art. 1, par. 3, Penal Code.)" — This passage establishes the rule on error in person, confirming that the offender's liability remains the same even if the bullet hits an unintended victim.
• "The crime now before us is frustrated murder, the accused having intended to kill and performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his Will. (Art. 3, Penal Code.)" — This defines the classification of the crime as frustrated murder, applying the legal standard for frustrated felonies under the Penal Code.

• United States vs. Montenegro, 15 Phil. 1 — Cited to support the proposition that intent to kill can be established by attendant circumstances, particularly when a firearm is discharged point-blank at vital parts of the body.
• Spanish Supreme Court Decision of May 7, 1885 (cited in Viada) — Cited to support the ruling that treachery is not negated by the accidental circumstance that the shot hit a person other than the one intended.

• Article 1, paragraph 3, Penal Code — Applied to establish that criminal liability is not altered when a person receives a shot intended for another (error in person).
• Article 3, Penal Code — Applied to classify the crime as frustrated murder, as the offender performed all acts of execution that would have produced the crime but it did not result due to causes independent of his will.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred.