Homicide
On Criminal Law
Homicide
ART.249
ART.249
Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
ELEMENTS of Homicide:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Hence, evidence of intent to kill is required only in attempted or frustrated homicide.
There is no crime of frustrated homicide through negligence/imprudence.
Physical injuries are one of the essential elements of frustrated homicide.
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide.
In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is brought about by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill and without homicidal intent, there is no liability.
When the wounds that caused death were inflicted by 2 different persons, even if they were not in conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of homicide.
In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element, there must be satisfactory evidence of
(1) the fact of death and
(2) the identity of the victim.
Penalty shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under 12 years of age
When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be determined who inflicted which would which caused the death of the victim, all are liable for the victim’s death.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill. In physical injuries, there is none. However, if as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the crime will be homicide because the law punishes the result, and not the intent of the act.
Corpus delicti – actual commission of crime charged
PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 152176, 10/1/03
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. The prosecution witness did not see the actual stabbing of the victim. Therefore, there is no way of determining on how the attack was initiated. In the same way that no testimony would prove that the appellant contemplated upon the mode to insure the killing. The crime committed by appellant is homicide.
GOROSPE vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 147974. 1/29/04
No error was committed by the trial court in characterizing the felonious assault as frustrated homicide and convicting appellant therefor. The appellant acted with intent to kill in firing the gun at
Miguel. 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.
ARADILLOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 135619, 1/15/04
An accused may be convicted of slight, less serious or serious physical injuries in a prosecution for homicide or murder, inasmuch as the infliction of physical injuries could lead to any of the latter
offenses when carried to its utmost degree despite the fact that an essential requisite of the crime of homicide or murder - intent to kill - is not required in a prosecution for physical injuries.
People v. Castillo
There is no offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence. Accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on prescription but erroneously used a highly poisonous substance. When taken by the patient, the latter nearly died. Accused is guilty only of physical injuries through reckless imprudence. The element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
ELEMENTS of Homicide:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Hence, evidence of intent to kill is required only in attempted or frustrated homicide.
There is no crime of frustrated homicide through negligence/imprudence.
Physical injuries are one of the essential elements of frustrated homicide.
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide.
In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is brought about by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill and without homicidal intent, there is no liability.
When the wounds that caused death were inflicted by 2 different persons, even if they were not in conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of homicide.
In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element, there must be satisfactory evidence of
(1) the fact of death and
(2) the identity of the victim.
Penalty shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under 12 years of age
When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be determined who inflicted which would which caused the death of the victim, all are liable for the victim’s death.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill. In physical injuries, there is none. However, if as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the crime will be homicide because the law punishes the result, and not the intent of the act.
Corpus delicti – actual commission of crime charged
PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 152176, 10/1/03
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. The prosecution witness did not see the actual stabbing of the victim. Therefore, there is no way of determining on how the attack was initiated. In the same way that no testimony would prove that the appellant contemplated upon the mode to insure the killing. The crime committed by appellant is homicide.
GOROSPE vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 147974. 1/29/04
No error was committed by the trial court in characterizing the felonious assault as frustrated homicide and convicting appellant therefor. The appellant acted with intent to kill in firing the gun at
Miguel. 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.
ARADILLOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 135619, 1/15/04
An accused may be convicted of slight, less serious or serious physical injuries in a prosecution for homicide or murder, inasmuch as the infliction of physical injuries could lead to any of the latter
offenses when carried to its utmost degree despite the fact that an essential requisite of the crime of homicide or murder - intent to kill - is not required in a prosecution for physical injuries.
People v. Castillo
There is no offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence. Accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on prescription but erroneously used a highly poisonous substance. When taken by the patient, the latter nearly died. Accused is guilty only of physical injuries through reckless imprudence. The element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
Bar Exam Question (1994)
Homicide; Frustrated; Physical Injuries (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
Suggested Answer:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto. The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide ... Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had already performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the intended felony of homicide were it not for causes independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of committing the crime and the part of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto.
There appears to be no intent to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto without using the knife.
You may want to read:
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.