GIOVANNI SERRANO vs.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 175023 (July 5, 2010)
Brion, J. / kam

SUBJECT MATTER: Crimes Against Persons

CASE SUMMARY: A rumble ensued after a one-on-one fight occurred between Gener (petitioners brother)
and Comia (victims friend). The petitioner stabbed the victim during the said rumble and was held guilty of
frustrated homicide by the RTC and thereafter held guilty of attempted homicide by the CA. The petitioner
contends that intent to kill was not established by the prosecution, thus accused is only guilty of serious physical
injuries. The SC held that intent to kill was properly established (use of knife, beating & stoning victim, and
leaving the victim for dead when he fell in the creek after) and affirmed the CAs decision (except for the civil
liability part see dispositive).

DOCTRINES: See bold and underlined sentences in the RATIO part for the doctrines.

FACTS:
There was a brawl involving 15 to 18 members of 2 rival groups in UP Diliman on March 8, 1999
(evening) wherein Anthony Galang (victim) was stabbed. Giovanni Serrano was pinpointed as the
assailant and was charged with frustrated homicide in an information on March 11, 1999. Petitioner
pleaded no guilty.
Prosecutions witnesses testified that at around 9:30pm of March 8, 1999, the victim and his two
friends, Arceo and Richard Tan, were on their way to Fatima II in Pook Dagohoy, UP Campus when
they came across Gener (petitioners brother) and his group of friends. The victims group approached
Gener & friends to settle a previous quarrel between Gener and Roberto Comia.
While victim and Gener were talking, Comia suddenly appeared and hurled invectives at Gener which
led to a fistfight. The petitioner, who was a guest at a party nearby, then appeared with other members
of his group when they heard about the fight. Members of the victims group also started to show up.
Gener lost the fight to Comia so the one-on-one fight escalated into a rumble. The victim and Arceo saw
that the petitioner had a knife which he used to chase away the members of their group, leaving the
victim alone with the petitioners group.
Petitioner stabbed the victim at the left side of his stomach while Gener and Orieta were holding the
victims arms. Thereafter, Gener and Orieta continued to beat and stone the victim until he fell into a
nearby creek. The petitioner and his group left the victim there.
The victim inspected his stab wound and saw that a portion of his intestines showed. On foot, he went to
find help. He was initially taken to the UP Infirmary but was referred to the East Avenue Medical
Center where he underwent surgery. Victim stayed at the hospital for a week, and thereafter stayed
home for one month to recuperate.
Defense:
Petitioner denied that he stabbed the victim and claimed that he and Gener left as soon as the rumble
started.
A witness (Hipolito) who is a member of petitioners group testified that he did not see the petitioner
and Gener during the fight.
RTC
Found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide. Bare statement of Serrano that
he did not stab the victim and that he really does not know who did is outweighed by the positive
identification by Galang that Serrano stabbed him frontally while they faced each other and also the
circumstantial evidence pointing to him as the wielder of the knife.
Imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision
mayor as maximum.
Reimburse complainant Anthony Galang in the amount of 15,000 pesos (hospital expenses) and 4,000
pesos (loss of 1 month income), total of 19,000 pesos.
CA
Ruled that it was attempted homicide only because the prosecution evidence failed to conclusively show
that the victims single stab wound was sufficient to cause death without timely medical intervention.
Modified penalty to 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional as maximum.
Reduced damages to 3,858.50 pesos. Award of loss earnings was deleted.

ISSUES: (Raised by petitioner)

1. Petitioner cannot be convicted because he was not positively identified by a credible testimony (NO
MERIT)
2. WON intent to kill was sufficiently proven; petitioner contends that intent to kill was not sufficiently
proven thus petitioner should only be convicted of serious physical injuries (YES there is intent to
kill)
3. Whether it was frustrated homicide or attempted homicide (ATTEMPTED)

RATIO:
1. First issue is a question of fact which this Court cannot entertain in a Rule 45 review, save for
exceptional reasons that must be clearly and convincingly shown. The petitioner cites an exception the
lower courts misappreciation of the testimonial evidence. The SC held that the RTC and the CA did not
err in their appreciation of the evidence.
The SC considered the ff. pieces of evidence of the prosecution: (1) manner of attack was done
frontally and at close range, thus allowing the victim to see his assailant; (2) lighting conditions at the
scene provided by two Meralco posts and white fluorescent type light from a steel manufacturing
shop; (3) victim & petitioner knew each other which allowed victim to readily identify the petitioner as
his assailant.
Victim also did not have improper motive to falsely accuse the petitioner of the crime. The
petitioner was also the only one seen in possession of a knife during the rumble (the knife that he used
to chase away others).
SC found that the victims identification of the petitioner as his assailant to be positive and
conclusive. Inconsistencies attributed to the victims testimony were found to be minor and not related
to the material elements of the crime. Inconsistencies relate to the rumble, not directly bearing on the
stabbing.

2. The intent to kill was sufficiently established. The crime can only be homicide if the intent to kill is
proven. Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external
manifestations, i.e., acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately
thereafter.

In Rivera v. People, the ff. factors were considered to determine the presence of an intent to kill:
(1) means used by malefactors;
(2) nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
(3) conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim;
and
(4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.

Motive and words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries on the victim are also
considered as additional determinative factors. Petitioner used a knife in his assault and stabbed the
victim while the latter was held by Gener and Orieta. Afterwards, Gener and Orieta beat and stoned the
victim until he fell into a creek and the CA aptly observed that they left the victim for dead. The Court is
convinced that the stabbing, beating, and stoning of the victim were intended to kill him. Thus, the
crime cannot be merely serious physical injuries.
 3. RTC held that since the victim was stabbed on the left side of his stomach and beaten until he fell into a
creek, the crime reached the frustrated stage. The CA ruled that the crime committed only reached the
attempted stage as there was lack of evidence that the stab wound inflicted was fatal to cause the
victims death. The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound inflicted which must be
supported by independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the
victims death without timely medical intervention.

When nothing in the evidence shows that the wound would be fatal without medical intervention,
the character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under this situation, the doubt created by
the lack of evidence should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Thus, the crime committed
should be attempted, not frustrated homicide.

Elements of frustrated homicide: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of
a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because
of timely medical assistance; (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of
RPC is present. The prosecution failed to prove the second element, thus the petitioner cannot be held
liable for frustrated homicide.

DISPOSITIVE:
Affirmed CAs penalty as to the number of years.
Civil liability: It was held in People v. Andres that if the actual damages, proven by receipts during the
trial, amount to less than 25,000 pesos, the victim shall be entitled to temperate damages in the amount
of 25,000 pesos, in lieu of actual damages. (Based on Article 2224 of the NC). Amount of actual
damages shall be deleted and be replaced by the 25,000 peso temperate damages.
Under Article 2219 par. 1 of the NCC, the victim is entitled to moral damages. The SC awarded the
victim with 10,000 pesos for moral damages.
Petition denied. Petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted homicide.