Dear Attorney,

I would like to seek your legal opinion on the topic of attempted and frustrated homicide. Can you provide examples of these scenarios? I am interested in understanding how the law in the Philippines distinguishes between these two criminal offenses. Your insights would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen

Insights

In the Philippines, homicide, like other crimes against persons, is classified based on the stages of execution under criminal law. To fully grasp the legal concepts of attempted and frustrated homicide, one must refer to the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which governs the distinctions and definitions of crimes in the country. Understanding these differences can help in recognizing how a case is charged and prosecuted, as well as the corresponding penalties.

What is Attempted Homicide?

Attempted homicide occurs when a person commences the execution of a crime directly by overt acts but does not complete all the stages due to reasons independent of their will. This means that the perpetrator intends to kill the victim and has taken concrete steps to do so, but for reasons beyond their control, the crime was not consummated.

Legal Requirements for Attempted Homicide:

Intent to Kill – The most crucial element in any homicide charge is the intent to kill. In attempted homicide, the prosecution must prove that the accused acted with the desire to end the life of another person.
Overt Act – The accused must have started to execute the act of killing through direct actions. These actions should be unequivocally aimed at causing death. An overt act can include stabbing, shooting, or attacking the victim in a manner that would ordinarily cause death.
Non-Completion of the Crime Due to External Reasons – For attempted homicide to be considered, the crime must not have been completed due to external factors. These factors could include interference by third parties, the timely medical intervention that saves the victim’s life, or the weapon malfunctioning.

Examples of Attempted Homicide:

A person shoots another with the intention to kill, but the gun jams or the bullet misses the victim. The accused’s intent to kill is evident, but due to reasons beyond their control, the homicide was not consummated.
A perpetrator stabs a victim in a vital area, but the weapon breaks or the victim is able to escape, preventing death. Despite the failure to complete the crime, the attacker’s actions clearly demonstrate an intent to kill.

What is Frustrated Homicide?

Frustrated homicide, on the other hand, takes place when the offender has performed all the acts of execution that should result in the victim’s death, but the victim survives due to timely medical intervention or other external factors.

Legal Requirements for Frustrated Homicide:

Intent to Kill – Similar to attempted homicide, frustrated homicide requires the intent to kill. The accused must have had a clear desire to end the victim’s life.
Acts Executed Would Have Caused Death – In frustrated homicide, the actions taken by the accused would normally lead to the victim’s death if not for external factors. This differentiates it from attempted homicide, where the actions might not be fully executed.
Survival of the Victim – The defining characteristic of frustrated homicide is that the victim does not die due to reasons independent of the offender’s will. For instance, the victim may survive due to immediate medical attention, or another individual may intervene, stopping the completion of the crime.

Examples of Frustrated Homicide:

An attacker shoots a victim in the chest with the intent to kill, and the bullet severely injures the victim. However, due to immediate surgery and medical intervention, the victim survives. Since the act would have resulted in death without external intervention, the charge is frustrated homicide.
A person stabs another in a fatal area, and the victim suffers life-threatening injuries. However, the victim survives because of prompt emergency care. Since the acts would ordinarily lead to death, it is classified as frustrated homicide.

Distinguishing Attempted and Frustrated Homicide:

The primary difference between attempted and frustrated homicide lies in the extent to which the criminal act has progressed. In attempted homicide, the act of killing is initiated but not completed due to external factors. In frustrated homicide, the act has been completed and would have resulted in death if not for external intervention.

In terms of penalties, both attempted and frustrated homicide are penalized less severely than consummated homicide. However, the penalties for frustrated homicide are typically more severe than those for attempted homicide because the crime progresses closer to its completion.

Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, penalties are imposed based on the stages of execution, with consummated crimes receiving the highest punishment, followed by frustrated and then attempted crimes. The specific penalty will depend on the circumstances of each case, such as whether mitigating or aggravating factors are present, which could reduce or enhance the punishment.

Jurisprudence on Attempted and Frustrated Homicide:

Several cases in the Philippines have helped clarify the distinctions between attempted and frustrated homicide. The Supreme Court, through various rulings, has underscored that determining whether a crime falls under attempted or frustrated homicide largely depends on whether the injuries inflicted on the victim would ordinarily cause death and whether the victim’s survival was due to factors independent of the accused.

In People vs. Alibasbas, the Court held that a critical factor in distinguishing frustrated homicide is whether the victim’s life was endangered by the injuries sustained. The Court ruled that the accused could only be convicted of frustrated homicide if the injuries inflicted were sufficient to cause death without timely medical intervention.

On the other hand, in People vs. Ubiña, the Court stated that for attempted homicide, the essential requirement is that the accused commenced the execution of the crime directly by overt acts but did not perform all the acts necessary to produce the death of the victim due to factors independent of their will.

Conclusion:

Attempted and frustrated homicide are distinct legal concepts under Philippine law, and understanding the difference between them is crucial for properly charging and prosecuting these cases. While both involve an intent to kill, attempted homicide is characterized by the non-completion of the act, whereas frustrated homicide involves the complete execution of the act, with the victim surviving due to outside factors.

Both crimes carry significant legal consequences, and it is important for legal practitioners and the public alike to comprehend the nuances of these offenses to ensure the proper application of justice.