NB: 1. This is a digest of People v. Almazan, 365 SCRA 373 as listed in the syllabus of Atty. Ticman. The case compilation available from the photocopier at FEU mis takenly photocopied People v. Amazan, 349 SCRA 218. 2. This digest has been streamlined to focus solely on stages of execution and i ts effects on criminal liability. Doctrine: If the victim was wounded with an injury that was not fatal, and could not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted. Facts: Accused Henry Almazan was convicted of the crime of Murder (of Noli Madriaga) an d Frustrated Murder (of Noel Madriaga). It appears from the facts that the two were shot by the accused over a confronta tion regarding the theft (and consumption) of the latter's fighting cocks (alleg edly by Noli and Noel). Noli was shot in the gut and died as a result. Noel was shot in the left thigh a nd survived. During the course of the investigation, the PNP Crime Laboratory Service conduct ed an autopsy on the body of Noli which revealed that the cause of the victim's death was a gunshot at the trunk from a .38 caliber revolver. Dr. Misael Jonatha n Ticman, attending physician of Noel, in turn declared that the gunshot wound o n the left thigh of Noel was a minor injury that would heal in a week. Noel was never admitted in the hospital as his doctor sent him home the same day. On cros s-examination, Dr. Ticman testified that if not medically treated the wound migh t get infected or lead to the victim's death. Accused contests his conviction for Frustrated Murder in the lower court as he c laims that he only shot Noel to forestall any attack on his person. Issue: (as regards stages of execution) W/N the accused Almazan is liable for Fr ustrated or Attempted Murder. Held: The accused-appellant should be held liable for attempted murder, not frustrated murder. For the charge of frustrated murder to flourish, the victim should sust ain a fatal wound that could have caused his death were it not for timely medica l assistance. This is not the case before us. The court a quo anchored its rulin g on the statement of Dr. Ticman on cross-examination that the wound of Noel cou ld catch infection or lead to his death if not timely and properly treated. Howe ver, in his direct testimony, Dr. Ticman declared that the wound was a mere mino r injury for which Noel, after undergoing treatment, was immediately advised to go home.15 He even referred to the wound as a slight physical injury that would heal within a week16 and for which the victim was in no danger of dying. Clear a s the statement is, coupled with the fact that Noel was indeed immediately advis ed to go home as he was not in any danger of death, we have no reason to doubt t he meaning and implications of Dr. Ticman's statement. His statement that Noel c ould catch infection was based on pure speculation rather than on the actual nat ure of the wound which was a mere minor injury, hence, not fatal. According to j urisprudence, if the victim was wounded with an injury that was not fatal, and c ould not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted. The observation tha t the conviction should be for slight physical injuries only is likewise imprope r as the accused-appellant was motivated by the same impetus and intent, i.e., t o exact vengeance and even kill, if necessary, when he shot Noel Madriaga. The f act that the wound was merely a minor injury which could heal in a week becomes inconsequential.
