FACTS

1. Respondents (Ravelo et al.) were convicted by the RTC of murder

of Reynaldo Gaurano (Criminal Case 1187) sentencing them reclusion
perpetua plus fine of P25,000; and frustrated murder of Joey
Lugatiman (Criminal Case 1194) sentencing them of 8 years and 1 day
up to 10 years imprisonment.

2. Respondents appealed to CA contending that the court erred in
finding them guilty of frustrated murder in Criminal Case 1194 for
absence of proof of intent to kill which is essential element of
frustrated murder.

ISSUE

W/N respondents' conviction of frustrated murder in Criminal Case
1194 is proper

HELD

The Court is of the view that accused-appellants are not guilty of
frustrated murder but only of the crime of slight physical injuries.

Wherefore the appealed judgments in both cases are affirmed and
modified. The accused-appellants are sentenced:

a. To serve penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000 in
Criminal Case 1187.
b. To serve penalty if arresto menor in Criminal Case 1194

REASON

Conviction of the respondents of frustrated murder is improper. For
there to have a frustrated murder, the offender must perform all
acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence but
did not produce such because of reasons independent of the
perpetrator's will, however in this case, the respondents did not do
or even at least commence criminal act by overt acts with direct
connection with crime of murder.
Also, in a crime of murder or an attempt or frustration, the
offender must also have the intent or actual design to kill which
must be manifested by external acts The facts and evidence do not
show anything from which the intent to kill could be deduced to
warrant conviction for frustrated murder. A mere statement of the
accused stating Lugatiman would be killed is insufficient proof of
such intent.