Can a person be held liable for both murder and attempted murder if his intention was to kill only one individual, but his actions resulted in the death of another?
Title: People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Bendecio
y Viejo alias "Tan"
G.R. No.: 235016
Date of Promulgation: September 8, 2020
Facts of the Case:
On the night of December 24, 2011, Nestor Bendecio, alias
"Tan," encountered Gerry Marasigan and his wife outside their home
after a social gathering. A brief exchange occurred, which ended with Gerry
dismissing Bendecio. However, when Gerry returned home with his wife, Bendecio
appeared outside their doorway. Without warning, Bendecio drew a handgun and
fired a shot aimed at Gerry. Tragically, the bullet missed Gerry and struck his
7-year-old daughter, Jonabel Marasigan, fatally injuring her. The same bullet
also wounded Gerry’s sister, Princess Marasigan.
Despite Jonabel being the unintended victim, Bendecio was
charged with the complex crime of attempted murder against Gerry and murder for
Jonabel’s death. During the trial, Gerry and Princess provided direct
testimonies, affirming that Bendecio was the shooter. The defense, on the other
hand, claimed alibi, stating that Bendecio was not present during the incident,
but his arguments were unsupported by other evidence.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa
convicted Bendecio of the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide. The
court appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance in the attempted
murder of Gerry but not in Jonabel’s death. Bendecio was sentenced to a prison
term of 12 to 20 years and was ordered to pay damages to Jonabel's family.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the
ruling and convicted Bendecio of the complex crime of attempted murder with
murder. The CA upheld the trial court’s finding that Bendecio intended to kill
Gerry but mistakenly shot Jonabel instead, holding him liable under the
doctrine of aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow). The CA also ruled
that Jonabel’s killing amounted to murder, given her age and vulnerability, and
appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance.
Bendecio appealed his case to the Supreme Court (SC),
seeking acquittal. He argued that the testimonies against him were unreliable
due to Gerry’s alleged intoxication and Princess’ familial bias.
Primary Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting Nestor Bendecio
of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder?
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court
of Appeals. It ruled that while Bendecio's intent was to kill Gerry, he is
still criminally liable for the death of Jonabel under the doctrine of aberratio
ictus, where liability extends to all the natural and logical consequences
of an unlawful act, even if the result differs from the original intent. The
Court found no reason to overturn the trial court's assessment of the
witnesses' credibility. The treachery in the attack against Gerry also extended
to Jonabel’s death, as she was an innocent and helpless victim who had no
opportunity to defend herself or retaliate.
Dispositive Portion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the conviction of Nestor Bendecio y Viejo for the complex crime of murder with
attempted murder. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole and ordered to pay:
- P100,000.00
as civil indemnity,
- P100,000.00
as moral damages,
- P100,000.00
as exemplary damages to Jonabel’s family,
- P50,000.00
as temperate damages,
with 6% interest per annum on all amounts from the finality of the decision until fully paid.
Should the principle of aberratio ictus automatically
result in a murder conviction when the unintended victim is a child, or should
the perpetrator’s lack of intent to kill the child mitigate the crime?
Important Doctrines:
- Aberratio
Ictus – Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability
arises from an unlawful act even if the outcome differs from the intended
result. In this case, Bendecio’s intention to kill Gerry did not exempt
him from liability for Jonabel’s death, which was the natural and direct
consequence of his felonious act.
- Treachery
– Treachery exists when the attack is sudden and unexpected, giving the
victim no chance to defend themselves. The Supreme Court ruled that
treachery attended both the attempted murder of Gerry and the murder of
Jonabel, as she was a helpless minor unable to defend herself from the
unprovoked attack.
- Complex
Crime under Article 48 – When a single act constitutes two or more
crimes, such as in this case where Bendecio’s single gunshot led to both
an attempted murder and a murder, the law imposes the penalty for the most
serious offense. The penalty for murder, the graver crime, was thus
imposed.
Classification: Criminal Law
🎓 Welcome, future lawyers
and bar examinees! In this educational content, we’ll explore an impactful
Supreme Court decision that highlights essential doctrines in Criminal Law,
particularly complex crimes, aberratio ictus, and treachery.
Today’s content focuses on recalling key legal principles to
assist law students and baristas in mastering case-based doctrines crucial for
both academic and bar exam success.
Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias
“Tan”
Nature: Criminal Law – Complex Crime (Murder with Attempted Murder)
Parties: The People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee) vs. Nestor Bendecio
y Viejo alias "Tan" (Accused-Appellant)
G.R. No.: 235016
Date of Promulgation: September 8, 2020
📌 Brief Summary:
On December 24, 2011, in Muntinlupa City, accused Nestor Bendecio fired a gun
intending to kill Gerry Marasigan. He missed and instead fatally shot Gerry’s
7-year-old daughter, Jonabel, and wounded Gerry’s sister, Princess. The Supreme
Court affirmed Bendecio’s conviction for the complex crime of murder with
attempted murder, applying the doctrine of aberratio ictus and appreciating treachery
in both offenses.
💭 Should a person be
punished for murder even if the person who died was not the intended target—especially
if the unintended victim was a child?
📚 TOP 10 IMPORTANT
DOCTRINES FROM THE CASE
(Each cited based on the attached Supreme Court decision)
- Aberratio
Ictus Doctrine (Article 4, RPC):
A felon is liable not only for the intended crime but also for all its natural and logical consequences—even if the victim differs from the target. [Source: p. 17] - Treachery
in Aberratio Ictus:
Treachery can qualify a killing as murder even if the victim was not the intended target, as long as the mode of attack was sudden and left no chance to defend. [p. 18] - Complex
Crime under Article 48, RPC:
A single act that results in multiple grave felonies (attempted murder and murder) constitutes a complex crime; the graver penalty is imposed in its maximum. [p. 20] - Treachery
Defined:
Treachery exists when the attack is sudden, unexpected, and without provocation, ensuring no defense for the victim. [p. 16] - Attempted
Murder Elements:
There is attempted murder when a deadly assault begins with intent to kill but fails due to reasons independent of the offender’s will. [p. 14] - Murder
Elements (Article 248, RPC):
To be murder, the killing must be attended by any qualifying circumstance such as treachery—not parricide or infanticide. [p. 13] - Credibility
of Witnesses Over Alibi:
Positive identification by witnesses prevails over denial and alibi, especially when not corroborated by other evidence. [p. 19] - Civil
and Moral Damages in Complex Crimes:
Each crime in a complex offense entitles the victims to separate awards for civil, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages. [p. 21] - Non-Eligibility
for Parole (R.A. 9346):
Those convicted of crimes previously punishable by death (now reclusion perpetua) are not eligible for parole. [p. 21] - Doctrine
in People v. Flora Applied:
Even in aberratio ictus, treachery can be appreciated if the attack renders all victims helpless and unarmed. [p. 18]
📢 DISCLAIMER:
This video is for educational purposes only. While we aim for accuracy, we do
not guarantee the content is infallible. This video was created using premium
AI tools and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult a licensed
legal professional for real-life cases.
🔗 Check out our online
store and social media channels:
📚
Philippine Law Reviewers: https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph
🎵
TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok
📘
Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb
▶️
YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
🎓 Welcome, future members of the bar! This multiple-choice quizzer is designed to help reinforce your understanding of a significant Criminal Law case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court.
Today’s quiz is based on the case of People
of the Philippines vs. Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias "Tan", G.R.
No. 235016, promulgated on September 8, 2020. This case involves the
complex crime of murder with attempted murder, where the accused fired a
single shot intended for one person, but the bullet tragically killed a child
and injured another.
The core issue in this case was whether
the accused could be convicted of both murder and attempted murder when he only
intended to kill one individual but ended up killing another by mistake. The
Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, applying the doctrines of aberratio
ictus and treachery, and held that the act was punishable as a
complex crime.
Make sure to answer all questions
thoughtfully, and don’t worry—the answer key will be provided at the end of
the video so you can check your understanding and learn from your mistakes.
Let’s begin!
📝 QUIZZER: 10 EASY HOTS MULTIPLE-CHOICE
QUESTIONS
1. What type
of crime was the accused ultimately convicted of by the Supreme Court?
A. Simple murder
B. Frustrated homicide
C. Complex crime of murder with attempted murder
D. Double homicide
2. What
doctrine did the Court apply in holding the accused liable for the death of the
unintended victim?
A. Mistake of fact
B. Aberratio ictus
C. Conspiracy
D. Impossible crime
3. Why was the
killing of the child considered murder by the Court?
A. The child was part of a criminal conspiracy
B. The death was caused accidentally
C. The child had no chance to defend herself
D. The weapon used was illegal
4. In the
case, who was the original target of the accused?
A. The child
B. A police officer
C. His sister-in-law
D. Gerry Marasigan
5. What made
the attack against the intended target qualify as attempted murder rather than
a consummated crime?
A. The target escaped willingly
B. The attacker voluntarily desisted
C. The bullet missed and did not cause fatal injury
D. The accused used a non-lethal weapon
6. Which of
the following best describes the effect of the accused’s single act of
shooting?
A. It was treated as two separate crimes tried individually
B. It created a complex crime punishable by the lesser penalty
C. It produced two grave felonies arising from one act
D. It was treated as reckless imprudence
7. What
circumstance was appreciated by the Court to qualify both crimes as murder or
attempted murder?
A. Premeditation
B. Provocation
C. Treachery
D. Intoxication
8. What was
the primary reason the Supreme Court gave for upholding the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses?
A. They were all law enforcement officers
B. Their testimonies were consistent and candid
C. They submitted video evidence
D. They had no relation to the victim
9. Which of
the following best explains why the accused’s alibi was rejected by the courts?
A. It was supported by other witnesses
B. It was more convincing than the testimonies
C. It was uncorroborated and inconsistent
D. It showed he was too far away
10. What was
the final penalty imposed by the Supreme Court?
A. Life imprisonment with parole
B. Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole
C. Death penalty
D. Indeterminate sentence of 12 to 20 years
No comments:
Post a Comment