Scribd
Upload
650 views1 page

26 - Etino

Eden Etino was convicted of frustrated homicide for shooting Jessierel Leyble with a 12 gauge shotgun. Etino claimed he was elsewhere at the time of the shooting. The RTC and CA found Etino guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on Leyble's identification of Etino as the shooter. However, the Supreme Court ruled the prosecution failed to prove the shooting would have been fatal without medical treatment or that Etino intended to kill. Therefore, the crime committed was physical injuries, not frustrated or attempted homicide.

Uploaded by

Ethan Kurby
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
650 views1 page

26 - Etino

Eden Etino was convicted of frustrated homicide for shooting Jessierel Leyble with a 12 gauge shotgun. Etino claimed he was elsewhere at the time of the shooting. The RTC and CA found Etino guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on Leyble's identification of Etino as the shooter. However, the Supreme Court ruled the prosecution failed to prove the shooting would have been fatal without medical treatment or that Etino intended to kill. Therefore, the crime committed was physical injuries, not frustrated or attempted homicide.

Uploaded by

Ethan Kurby
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ETINO vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 206632, February 14, 2018
FACTS:
At about 4:30 in the afternoon of November 5, 2001, while Jessierel Leyble (Leyble)and his
companions, Isidro Maldecir and Richard Magno, were walking on their way home to Barangay
Pispis, Maasin, Iloilo, he was shot with a 12 gauge shotgun by the petitioner, Eden Etino, hitting
the back portion of his right shoulder and other parts of his body.
As a defense, herein petitioner claimed that at about 4:30 in the afternoon of November 5, 2001,
petitioner was with Barangay Captain Manuel Bomejan, Wenifredo Besares and Bautista Etino
at the house of the latter which was situated about one kilometer away from where they heard
shots that afternoon. They also alleged that the filing of the criminal complaint was precipitated
by a pending Comelec gun-ban case before the RTC filed against Leyble, wherein petitioner
was the witness.
On January 14, 2008, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
frustrated homicide. It ruled that petitioner was positively identified as the perpetrator of the
crime charged against him, especially so, when the complainant, Leyble, was alive to tell what
actually happened.
Thereafter, on petition, the CA ruled that the trial court did not err in giving full weight and
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Evaluation of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses amply showed that Jessierel Leyble succinctly but clearly narrated how
he was shot and he also categorically identified petitioner as his assailant.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in holding that the petitioner’s guilt for the charged crime of frustrated
homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
In order to determine whether the crime committed is attempted or frustrated parricide, murder
or homicide, or only lesiones (physical injuries), the crucial points to consider are: a) whether
the injury sustained by the victim was fatal, and b) whether there was intent to kill on the part of
the accused.
In this case, the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove that the victim would have died
from his wound without timely medical assistance, as his Medical Certificate alone, absent the
testimony of the physician who diagnosed and treated him, or any physician for that
matter, is insufficient proof of the nature and extent of his injury.
Furthermore, it was sufficiently shown that petitioner fired a 12 gauge shotgun at the victim,
there was simply no other evidence on record that tended to prove that petitioner had animus
interficendi or intent to kill the victim.
Thus, in this case, the crime is not frustrated or attempted homicide but physical injuries only.

You might also like