First Case

I am for the DEFENSE and my finding is LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY.

It is neither murder nor homicide because the intent to kill was not sufficiently proven on the

case presented. First, the means used by the accused, a short-bladed weapon could not inflict a

mortal wound on the offended party enough to put his life in the peril of death, if the accused has

the intention to kill the victim he could have used a much bigger and powerful weapon instead.

Second, nature of the wound which is a 4cm laceration and a muscle deep is not indicative of a

fatal wound. A fatal stab wound of the abdomen usually involves injury to the liver or a major

blood vessel and thus penetrates up to the peritoneum. Third, location, most fatal stab wounds

are located in the chest region which is not clearly indicated in his medical certificate. Fourth, the

number of wound he inflicted on his victim; if the accused intended to kill the victim he could

have repeatedly stab him to ensure the latters death, and not leave after a stab when there was an

opportunity to do otherwise. Homicidal stab wounds are usually multiple. Therefore, homicide or

murder claim is eliminated.

Any person who shall wound, beat or assault another shall be guilty of the crime serious physical

injuries, according to Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the bases of the foregoing, I submit that the crime of LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL

INJURIES was committed by the herein accused. First paragraph of Article 265 of the Revised

Penal Code states that (1) any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not

described in the preceding articles; yes, the aforementioned physical injuries on the case

presented are not described in Article 263 and Article 264; the inflicted 4cm stab wound, muscle

deep, would require one to two weeks healing process according the book of Legal Medicine;
therefore, (2) would incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more (but not more

than 30 days) ; and such wound would (3) require medical assistance for the same period , the

complainant was rushed to Divine Word Hospital in Tacloban City for immediated medical

attention. ; (4) shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.

Just like in the case of JUN MUPAS and GIL MUPAS versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 172834, promulgated on February 06, 2008 . The accused Jun and Gil Mupas on

February 18, 1993, in the Municipality of Bangar, Province of La Union, Philippines conspiring,

confederating and mutually helping one another and with intent to kill, did then and there

willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, maul with fist and stones and stab with a 29-inch

Batangas knife Rogelio Murao y Sibayan inflicting injuries on his face and head were found

guilty of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. 2314 in the Decision dated November 22,

2002 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Malaloan, La Union, Branch 34. No evidences

were established that there was an intent to kill Rogelio. It can be fairly assumed that the injuries

suffered by Rogelio were sustained during the fight, but it is not conclusive that the same were

inflicted purposely to kill him. For if the accused conspired and intended to kill the latter, the

wounds inflected could have been mortal and they could have beaten him to death. The stab

wound inflicted could heal in two weeks according to Dr. Marinez.

This was also reiterated in the jurisprudence of ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR.,

petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, G.R. No. 167766, promulgated

on April 10, 2010 were the accused armed with a gun with intent to kill, with evident

premeditation and with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault,

attack and shoot Rudy Baclig, inflicting the latter gunshot injuries. But such intent must be

proved in a clear and evident manner. In the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove the
intention to kill beyond reasonable doubt, just like in the incident that happened in Pegasus

Videoke Bar, Dulag, Leyte (first case) neither Murder nor Homicide could be established. In the

case of G.R. No. 172834 the decision of frustrated Homicide was downgraded to LESS

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES and in this case presented since there was no evidence to

show that petitioner employed such means of execution that would ensure the commission of the

crime Engr. Carlito Pentecostes , Jr., was sentenced of LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

instead of attempted Murder and I claim the same on my chosen case.