Yes.

The jurisprudence provides that when the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested
by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but
did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder or
frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the qualifying circumstances under Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code are present.
If the accused intended to kill his victim and the wound/s sustained by the victim in such a case
were not fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is only attempted murder or attempted
homicide.
If there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused and the wound/s sustained by the victim
were not fatal, the crime committed may be serious, less serious or slight physical injury.
Serious – more than 30 days
Less serious – more than 10 days
Light – more than 1 day less than 10 days

Comparison of frustrated and attempted felony:

Frustrated- if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony as a consequence and the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is some
cause independent of the will of the perpetrator
Attempted- if the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts and does not perform all the acts of execution and the reason for the non-fulfillment of the
crime is a cause or accident other than the offender's own spontaneous desistance.

ELEMENTS OF MURDER:

1) a person was killed;

(2) the accused killed him;
(3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated
in Article 248

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. law library
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. virtual law library
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.es virtual law library
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse. virtual

(4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.

The jurisprudence provides that “where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which
the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and together with the
facts existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense” the accused cannot be said to
be in second jeopardy, if indicted for the new offense.
There is then the indispensable requirement of the existence of "a new fact [which] supervenes
for which the defendant is responsible" changing the character of the crime imputed to him and
together with the facts existing previously constituting a new and distinct offense.

The course of the healing of an injury may not be determined beforehand, it can only be known
after the period of healing has ended. Hence, the Court, considered that the additional allegation
of deformity of the right side of the face of the victim constitutes a supervening fact occurring since
the filing of the original information.

Jurisprudence provides that the presentation of the medical certificates to prove the duration of
the victims’ need for medical attendance or of their incapacity should take place only at the trial,
not before or during the preliminary investigation. Further stated, preliminary investigation is
merely inquisitorial, in that it is the occasion for the submission of the parties’ respective affidavits,
counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their separate allegations; its sole purpose is to
determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe
that the accused is guilty thereof.
In the case of People vs. Mapalo, he was charged with the crime of maltreatment. The
jurisprudence provides that intent to kill may be proved by evidence of:

(a) motive;
(b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime;
(c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim;
(d) the manner the crime was committed; and
(e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.

Here, no motive on the part of appellant to kill Piamonte was shown either prior or subsequent to
the incident. Nor can such intent to kill be inferred from his acts. It bears reiterating that no injury
on the body of the deceased was attributed to the appellant’s act of hitting the victim with a lead
pipe. Hence, When the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury, and
without causing dishonor, the offense is Maltreatment under Article 266,98 par. 3 of the Revised
Penal Code. It was beyond reasonable doubt that by hitting Piamonte, appellant ill-treated the
latter, without causing any injury. No proof of injury was offered. Maltreatment is necessarily
included in Murder, which is the offense charged in the Information

Intent to kill is the principal element of homicide or murder, in whatever stage of commission; such
intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the
homicidal intent of the aggressor.

The Court finds that respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately
dismissing the case for alleged lack of jurisdiction on the mere basis of his totally wrong notion
that what governs in the filing of a physical injury case is the medical certificate regarding the
duration of treatment and "not what the victim declares because the same is self-serving."

It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of
the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial,'
much less by the trial judge's personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the
fiscal to the record of the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their
evidence at a proper trial.

The law (RA No. Here, the records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner’s
laying of hands on the victim had been intended to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
latter as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass him. The laying
of hands on the victim have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his
being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor
daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of the victim and his brother, Roldan.

As the text of the law itself shows, the breaking of the hymen of the victim is not among the means
of consummating rape. All that the law required is that the accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman under the circumstances described in the law. By definition, carnal knowledge was "the
act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman."22 This understanding of rape
explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the crime. Carnal
knowledge, the other essential element in consummated statutory rape, does not require full
penile penetration of the female. The Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan26 that the mere
touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient
to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is
for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact with
the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated once the penis
of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum.

ELEMENTS OF MUTILATION

1) that there be a castration , that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation;
2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party
of some essential organ for reproduction
N. CASES:

Name: CHAN vs. CHAN N. G.R. No. 179786 July 24, 2013 Facts Josielene osielene Lara Chan (Josielene)
filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 144 a petition for the declaration of
nullity of her marriage to respondent Johnny Chan (Johnny), the dissolution of their conjugal partnership
of gains, and the award of custody of their children to her. Josielene claimed that Johnny failed to care
for and support his family and that a psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to incessant
drinking and excessive use of prohibited drugs. Indeed, she had convinced him to undergo hospital
confinement for detoxification and rehabilitation. ohnny resisted the action, claiming that it was
Josielene who failed in her wifely duties. To save their marriage, he agreed to marriage counseling but
when he and Josielene got to the hospital, two men forcibly held him by both arms while another gave
him an injection. The marriage relations got worse when the police temporarily detained Josielene for
an unrelated crime and released her only after the case against her ended. By then, their marriage
relationship could no longer be repaired. Issue Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the trial court
correctly denied the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny’s hospital records on the
ground that these are covered by the privileged character of the physician-patient communication?
Held/Ratio: Josielene requested the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital records
of Johnny’s confinement, which records she wanted to present in court as evidence in support of her
action to have their marriage declared a nullity. Respondent Johnny resisted her request for subpoena,
however, invoking the privileged character of those records. He cites Section 24(c), Rule 130 of the Rules
of Evidence which reads:SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.— The
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases c) A person
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the
patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable
him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient.The physician-patient
privileged communication rule essentially means that a physician who gets information while
professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the patient’s consent as to
any facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the patient to
open up to the physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body,
enabling the physician to make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any
fear that a physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all that had
transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health
at great risk.

Name: KROHN vs.COURT OF APPEALS and KROHN, JR., G.R. No. 108854 June 14, 1994 Facts Ma. Paz
Fernandez Krohn, invoking the rule on privileged communication between physician and patient, seeks
to enjoin her husband from disclosing the contents of the report. Issue Whether or not the evidence
offered by Edgar may be admitted? Held/Ratio: Petitioner's discourse while exhaustive is however
misplaced. Lim v Court of Appeals clearly lays down the requisites in order that the privilege may be
successfully invoked: (a) the privilege is claimed in civil case; (b) the person against whom the privilege is
claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person acquired the
information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity; (d) the information was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and, (e) the information was confidential and, if
disclosed, would blacken the reputation(formerly character) of the patient

Name: NELLY LIM v. THE COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 91114. September 25, 1992

24

Facts • November 25, 1987 – Juan Sim filed with Pangasinan RTC a petition for annulment based on Art
36, alleging that Nelly Lim (petitioner) is suffering from schizophrenia before, during and after marriage
and until the present • January 11, 989 – Sim announced he will present Dr Lydia Acampado (psychiatrist)
as a witness on January 25, 1989 • Petitioner opposed on the grounds that the testimony sought to be
elicited from the witness is privileged since Dr Acampado had examined Lim in a professional capacity and
had diagnosed her with schizophrenia. Subpoena was issued on January 12, 1989 • January 24, 1989 –
petitioner filed urgent motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings. Overruled • Respondent
claimed that Dr Acampado will be presented as expert witness and would not testify on any information
acquired while attending to the petitioner as doctor. • March 3, 1989 – petitioner filed with CA petition
for certiorari and prohibition but was denied on September 18, 1989 on the ground that petitioner failed
to establish the confidential nature of the testimony obtained from Dr Acampado Issue Whether Dr
Acampado can be presented as expert witness in testifying schizophrenia in case where petitioner is her
client? Held/Ratio: In order for patient-doctor privilege can be claimed, the following requisites must
concur: 1. Privilege claimed is in a civil case 2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is one
duly authorized to practice medicine 3. Such person acquired the information while he was attending to
the patient in his professional capacity 4. The information was necessary for him to enable him to act in
that capacity These requisites must concur with the 4 fundamental conditions necessary for invoking
doctor-patient confidentiality: 1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not
be disclosed 2. Element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the
relation between the parties 3. The relation must be one which the opinion of the community ought to
be sedulously fostered 4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the
communications must greater than the benefit thereby gain for correct disposal of litigation