Attempted Homicide in the Philippines: Elements, Penalties, and Defenses

Attempted Homicide in the Philippines: Elements, Penalties, and Defenses

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, attempted homicide represents a critical juncture where criminal intent meets incomplete execution, falling short of the consummated crime of homicide. Governed primarily by the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as amended), attempted homicide is classified as an attempted felony under Article 6 of the RPC. This offense underscores the principle that the law punishes not only completed crimes but also those that are thwarted before fruition, provided there is clear intent and overt action toward the criminal end.

Homicide itself, as defined in Article 249 of the RPC, is the unlawful killing of any person without the qualifying circumstances that would elevate it to murder (e.g., treachery, evident premeditation) or parricide (killing of a spouse, ascendant, or descendant). Attempted homicide, therefore, involves actions that aim at such killing but fail to achieve it due to intervening factors beyond the offender's control. This article explores the elements required to establish attempted homicide, the applicable penalties, available defenses, and related jurisprudential insights, all within the Philippine context.

Elements of Attempted Homicide

To convict an accused of attempted homicide, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements, derived from Articles 6 and 249 of the RPC:

1. Intent to Kill (Mens Rea): There must be a specific intent to cause the death of the victim. This is the animus hominis, or homicidal intent, which distinguishes attempted homicide from lesser offenses like physical injuries. Intent can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the location and severity of the wounds inflicted, the offender's words or conduct, and the overall circumstances. For instance, if the accused uses a lethal weapon like a firearm or a bladed instrument aimed at vital parts of the body, intent to kill is presumed. However, if the injuries are minor or not directed at fatal areas, the charge may be downgraded to attempted slight physical injuries or similar offenses.

2. Commencement of the Felony by Overt Acts (Actus Reus): The offender must perform overt acts that directly initiate the commission of homicide. These acts must be unequivocal and go beyond mere preparation. Preparation, such as procuring a weapon or planning the act, is generally not punishable unless it constitutes a separate crime. Overt acts include, for example, firing a gun at the victim, stabbing, or strangling, where the action is clearly directed toward killing. The acts must be external and manifest the criminal purpose.

3. Non-Performance of All Acts of Execution: The offender does not complete all the acts necessary to consummate the homicide. This means the victim does not die, but the failure is not due to the offender's voluntary desistance.

4. Cause Independent of the Offender's Will: The reason the crime is not consummated must be due to some cause or accident other than the offender's spontaneous decision to stop. Examples include the timely intervention of third parties (e.g., police arrival), the victim's escape or resistance, medical intervention saving the victim's life, or the offender's poor aim or defective weapon. If the offender desists voluntarily before consummation, the act may not be punishable as an attempt, though preparatory acts could still be addressed under other provisions.

These elements must be established through evidence, such as eyewitness testimonies, medical reports on injuries, ballistic or forensic evidence, and the accused's statements. The Supreme Court has emphasized in cases like People v. Lizada (G.R. No. 143468-71, 2003) that the boundary between attempted and frustrated stages (where all acts are performed but the crime is not produced by reason of causes independent of the offender's will) hinges on whether the offender believed they had exhausted all means to kill. In attempted homicide, the acts are incomplete; in frustrated, they are complete but fail to result in death.

Distinctions are crucial: If death occurs, it becomes consummated homicide. If the acts are insufficient to show intent to kill, it may be reclassified as physical injuries under Articles 263-266 of the RPC, depending on the severity (serious, less serious, or slight).

Penalties for Attempted Homicide

Penalties for attempted homicide are prescribed under Article 51 of the RPC, which provides for penalties for attempts to commit felonies. The penalty for the consummated crime is lowered by two degrees.

• Penalty for Consummated Homicide: Under Article 249, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal, which ranges from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. This is a divisible penalty divided into minimum (12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months), medium (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months), and maximum (17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years) periods.

• Penalty for Attempted Homicide: As an attempt, the penalty is prision mayor, which is two degrees lower than reclusion temporal. Prision mayor spans from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, also divisible into minimum (6 years and 1 day to 8 years), medium (8 years and 1 day to 10 years), and maximum (10 years and 1 day to 12 years) periods.

The exact period imposed depends on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under Articles 63 and 64 of the RPC. For example:

• Mitigating Circumstances: Factors like voluntary surrender, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong (praeter intentionem), or the offender being a minor over 15 but under 18 (now subject to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, R.A. 9344, as amended) may lower the penalty by one degree or to the minimum period.

• Aggravating Circumstances: Elements such as nighttime (nocturnity), abuse of superior strength, or use of a motor vehicle could increase the penalty to the maximum period, though they do not qualify the crime to murder unless they meet the criteria in Article 248.

Additionally:

• Accessory Penalties: Under Article 41, reclusion temporal (and thus its derivatives) includes temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special disqualification from suffrage. For prision mayor, it includes suspension from public office and perpetual special disqualification from suffrage during the term.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended): Courts typically impose indeterminate sentences, e.g., 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional (as minimum) to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor (as maximum) for attempted homicide, allowing for parole eligibility.

• Special Laws and Adjustments: If the attempt involves a minor victim, penalties may be increased under R.A. 7610 (Child Protection Act). If firearms are used illegally, additional penalties under R.A. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) apply. Probation may be available under the Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended) if the sentence is 6 years or less.

Civil liabilities, such as damages for medical expenses, lost earnings, and moral damages, are also imposed under Article 100 of the RPC, with actual damages proven and temperate damages (at least P50,000 for death-related cases, though adjusted for attempts) possible.

Defenses Against Attempted Homicide Charges

Defenses in attempted homicide cases can be justifying circumstances (which exclude criminal liability), exempting circumstances (which absolve responsibility), or other strategies challenging the elements. Key defenses include:

1. Justifying Circumstances (Article 11, RPC):

   • Self-Defense: The most common defense, requiring unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation by the accused. If proven, the accused is acquitted. Incomplete self-defense may mitigate the penalty.
   • Defense of Relatives or Strangers: Similar requirements apply if defending a spouse, relative, or even a stranger from unlawful aggression.
   • Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right: E.g., law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.
   • Obedience to Superior Order: If the order is lawful and not patently illegal.

2. Exempting Circumstances (Article 12, RPC):

   • Insanity or Imbecility: If the accused was insane at the time, lacking discernment.
   • Minority: Under R.A. 9344, children in conflict with the law (under 18) are exempt if under 15, or subject to diversion if 15-18 without discernment.
   • Accident: If the act occurred without fault or intent, under circumstances beyond control.
   • Irresistible Force or Uncontrollable Fear: Compulsion by superior force or threat.

3. Mitigating Circumstances (Article 13, RPC): Not full defenses but reduce penalties, e.g., passion or obfuscation, voluntary surrender, or physical disability affecting the act.

4. Other Defenses and Strategies:

   • Lack of Intent to Kill: Arguing that actions were for intimidation or injury only, potentially reducing to physical injuries.
   • Voluntary Desistance: If the accused stopped of their own accord before completing the acts.
   • Alibi: Proving the accused was elsewhere, though weak without corroboration.
   • Mistake of Fact: If the accused believed in good faith that the act was lawful.
   • Procedural Defenses: Challenging evidence admissibility, e.g., illegal arrest or search under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine, or insufficiency of evidence.

In practice, defenses must be proven by the accused with clear and convincing evidence, as the burden shifts once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.

Jurisprudential Insights and Case Law

Philippine jurisprudence provides nuanced interpretations:

• People v. Aculina (G.R. No. 210269, 2015): Emphasized that intent to kill is deduced from the totality of circumstances, not just wound severity.
• Rivera v. People (G.R. No. 166326, 2006): Clarified the distinction between attempted and frustrated homicide; in attempted, not all acts are performed.
• People v. Sy Pio (G.R. No. L-39818, 1984): Held that firing a gun but missing due to intervention constitutes attempted homicide.
• Baleros v. People (G.R. No. 138033, 2006): Ruled that chloroform use without intent to kill is not attempted homicide but physical injuries.

Recent cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (R.A. 11479) or during the COVID-19 era highlight intersections with public health laws, but core RPC principles remain.

Conclusion

Attempted homicide in the Philippines embodies the legal system's proactive stance against threats to life, balancing punishment with considerations of intent and completion. Understanding its elements ensures proper classification, while penalties reflect graduated accountability. Defenses safeguard against unjust convictions, promoting justice. Legal practitioners and the public must navigate these provisions carefully, often with reference to evolving case law, to uphold the rule of law.