Case 24

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee vs. RAMON MABUG-AT,

defendant-appelllant

G.R. No. L-25459

August 10, 1926

ROMUALDEZ, J.

Facts:

The defendant-appellant, Ramon Mabug-at was found by the Court of First Instance of Oriental
Negros as guilty for the crime of frustrated murder and was imposed with penalty of twelve
years and one day cadena temporal, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended
party in the sum of P700 and to pay the costs.

The appellant appealed from this judgment citing two errors committed by the trial court, to wit:
1) In holding that the crime committed is frustrated murder, and 2) In not giving any credit to the
evidence presented by the defense, finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence of the prosecution shows that the accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts.
Juana had been jealous of the accused on the account of the latter having frequently visited the
house of one Carmen. The accused invited Juana to take a walk on the afternoon of August 9,
1925. Juana refused him, later sending him a note of excuse. On the third day, the accused
went to the threshold of Cirilo Banyan’s house where Juana Buralo had gone to take part in
some devotion. There the accused, revolver in hand, requested Francisco Abellon to ask Juana
to come downstairs and as Abellon refused to do so, the accused said, “If you do not want to go
upstairs, I will get Juana and if anyone tries to defend her I will kill him.”

The accused waited until Juana and her niece Perfecta Buralo came downstairs when they went
in the direction of their house. The accused, who was seen by the two, followed them without
saying a word. The houses were just adjacent. As the two girls were going upstairs, the
accused, while standing at the foot of the stairway, fired a shot from his revolver which wounded
Perfecta Buralo, the bullet passing through a part of her neck, and coming out through the left
eye, which was completely destroyed. Due to proper medical attention, Perfecta Buralo did not
die and is one of the witnesses who testified at the trial of this case.

The defense, without abandoning its allegation that the accused is not responsible for the crime,
contends that the crime proven is not frustrated murder but the discharge of a firearm, with
injuries, it not having been proven that it was the accused’s intention to kill.
Issue:

1. Whether or not there was an intention to kill on the part of the accused.
2. Whether or not the trial court committed an error in holding that the crime committed was
frustrated murder

Held:

1. Yes. There was an intention to kill on the part of the accused. The court ruled
that the relations existing between the accused and Juana Buralo, his
disappointment at her not accepting his invitation to take a walk, the fact that the
accused, revolver in hand, went to look for Juana Buralo at the house where the
devotion was being held, later following her to her house, and especially having
aimed at her person--the head--are facts which, in their opinion, permit of no
other conclusion than that, in firing the shot, it was the accused's intention to kill.
Moreover, the fact that a person received the shot which was intended for
another, does not alter his criminal liability. (Art. 1, par. 3, Penal Code.
2. No. The trial court did not commit an error in holding that crime committed was
frustrated murder. The Supreme Court cited treachery as the qualifying
circumstance. Further it was ruled that the treachery was proven and must be
taken into consideration in this case, because the accused fired at Perfecta
Buralo, employing means which tended to insure the execution of the crime
without running any risk himself from anyone who might attempt to defend the
said offended party. The treachery which, according to the evidence, would have
attended the crime had the bullet hit Juana Buralo was present in this case
because the offended party Perfecta Buralo and Juana were going upstairs with
their backs towards the accused when he fired his revolver. Finally, the Supreme
Court ruled that the crime committed was 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.) Therefore, the
Supreme Court has this to say regarding the judgement being appealed, “The
judgment appealed from being in accordance with the law and the facts proven,
the same is hereby affirmed in all its parts costs against the appellant. So
ordered.”