In Bonifacio Nieva v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of frustrated homicide, clarifying the critical element of intent to kill. The Court emphasized that intent to kill can be inferred from the offender’s actions, the weapon used, and the nature of the victim’s injuries. This case underscores the principle that even if death is averted due to timely medical intervention, the perpetrator can still be held liable for frustrated homicide if the intent to kill is evident.

Gunshots and Grievances: When Does a Shooting Constitute Frustrated Homicide?

The case revolves around an incident on October 28, 2005, in Malabon City. Bonifacio Nieva, the petitioner, was charged with frustrated murder for allegedly shooting Judy Ignacio, the president of their homeowners association. The prosecution presented evidence that Nieva, after a heated argument with Ignacio, drew a .357 caliber revolver and shot her, causing a gunshot wound to her leg. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Nieva of frustrated homicide, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), albeit with modifications to the penalty. Nieva then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning the lower courts’ findings and claiming that the shooting was accidental and that he had no intent to kill Ignacio.

Nieva raised several defenses, primarily attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and arguing that the shooting was a mere accident. He also contended that even if he were criminally liable, he should only be convicted of physical injuries, as he allegedly lacked the intent to kill Ignacio. The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded by these arguments. It affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which is given great respect on appeal.

The Court addressed Nieva’s claims of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, stating that minor inconsistencies do not necessarily negate their credibility. According to the Court, these inconsistencies can even bolster credibility, as they demonstrate that the testimonies were not contrived or rehearsed. The Court cited People v. Malate, where it was held that:

Even if they do exist, minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or rehearsed. Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court dismissed Nieva’s claim that the shooting was accidental. It reiterated that denial is an intrinsically weak defense, especially when faced with the positive identification of credible witnesses. The Court emphasized that for the exempting circumstance of accident to apply, the accused must demonstrate that they were performing a lawful act with due care and without fault or intention of causing injury.

Article 12 (4) of the Revised Penal Code provides the legal framework for excusing criminal liability based on accident:

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. – The following are exempt from criminal liability:
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

In Nieva’s case, the Court found that he was not performing a lawful act when he drew a gun and pointed it at Ignacio. The act of drawing a weapon during a quarrel, without self-defense, constitutes at least light threats, as established in People v. Nepomuceno, Jr. Furthermore, Nieva’s persistence in firing the gun, even after initial misfires, indicated a clear intention to harm Ignacio.

The Court then addressed the critical issue of intent to kill, distinguishing frustrated homicide from physical injuries. It cited Rivera v. People, which laid out the criteria for determining 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;
4. The circumstances under which the crime was committed; and
5. The motives of the accused.

Applying these criteria, the Court found that Nieva’s use of a deadly weapon, his repeated attempts to fire the gun, and the nature of Ignacio’s wound all pointed to an intent to kill. The Court highlighted that Ignacio’s survival was due to timely medical intervention, not a lack of intent on Nieva’s part.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of damages, modifying the amounts awarded by the lower courts. Citing People v. Jugueta, the Court adjusted the amounts for moral damages and civil indemnity to P30,000.00 each. This adjustment reflects current jurisprudence on the appropriate amounts of damages in frustrated homicide cases.

To further illustrate the Court’s reasoning, consider this table comparing the elements of frustrated homicide and physical injuries:

Element	Frustrated Homicide	Physical Injuries
Intent to Kill	Present	Absent
Means Used	Likely to cause death	Not necessarily deadly
Nature of Injury	Potentially fatal	Not life-threatening

As the table makes clear, the presence of intent to kill is the distinguishing factor. In frustrated homicide, the perpetrator intends to cause death, whereas, in physical injuries, the intention is merely to cause bodily harm. This distinction is crucial in determining the appropriate charge and corresponding penalty.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the shooting of Judy Ignacio constituted frustrated homicide or merely physical injuries, hinging on the presence or absence of intent to kill. The Supreme Court clarified the elements necessary to prove frustrated homicide.
What evidence was used to prove intent to kill?	The Court considered the use of a deadly weapon (a gun), the nature and location of the wound, the conduct of Nieva before and during the shooting, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. All these factors indicated an intent to kill Judy Ignacio.
What is the significance of “frustration” in frustrated homicide?	“Frustration” refers to the fact that the perpetrator performed all the acts of execution that would have resulted in the victim’s death, but death did not occur due to causes independent of the perpetrator’s will, such as timely medical intervention.
What is the exempting circumstance of accident?	The exempting circumstance of accident applies when a person is performing a lawful act with due care and causes an injury by mere accident, without fault or intention of causing it. This did not apply to Nieva because he was not performing a lawful act.
How did the Court address inconsistencies in witness testimonies?	The Court stated that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not necessarily undermine their credibility. In fact, such inconsistencies can even strengthen credibility by demonstrating that the testimonies were not rehearsed.
What damages were awarded to the victim, Judy Ignacio?	The Supreme Court awarded Judy Ignacio P30,000.00 in moral damages and P30,000.00 in civil indemnity. These amounts are consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on damages in frustrated homicide cases.
What is the difference between moral damages and civil indemnity?	Moral damages are awarded to compensate for mental anguish, suffering, and similar injuries. Civil indemnity is awarded as a matter of right when a crime is committed, regardless of whether there is proof of actual damages.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bonifacio Nieva for frustrated homicide, with modifications to the amounts of damages awarded. The Court found that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Nieva intended to kill Judy Ignacio.

The Bonifacio Nieva case is a significant reminder of the importance of establishing intent in criminal cases. It highlights the factors courts consider when determining whether a shooting constitutes frustrated homicide or merely physical injuries. This ruling reinforces the principle that individuals who intentionally inflict potentially fatal injuries will be held accountable, even if the victim survives due to timely medical assistance.

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: Bonifacio Nieva v. People, G.R. No. 188751, November 16, 2016