People of the Philippines, complainant v.

Philip John Hilaga alias Noy Jun Buang, Jelly Saavedra, respondents.
Criminal Case No. 18-82130
for Frustrated Murder (Art. 248 in relation to Art.6 of the Revised Penal Code)

Accused: Philip John Hilaga alias ‘Noy Jun Buang’

Jelly Saavedra

Jarbe Sutero alias ‘Bor-Bor’

Victim: John Kevin Poral

Witnesses: Edel John Juario alias ‘White’

Mindalena S. Hermosura

Wilma Saavedra

Introduction

The accused were charged with the crime of frustrated murder. That after the preliminary
investigation and judicial affidavits of witnesses, the accused and victim were taken; and as
evidenced by medical certificate and facts, it was proven that there was crime of frustrated
murder committed. That on 31 of December 2017, in the City of Iloilo, the accused were found
st

conspiring and helping one another with deliberate intent and justifiable motive, and with
decided purpose to kill willfully, unlawfully and criminally stab and hit John Kevin Poral at the
back in a sudden unexpected manner, thereby inflicting stab wounds at the latter’s back. The
accused performed all the acts in the execution of murder, however failed to consummate the
crime due to intervention of third person and medical assistance.

The victim filed a complaint against the accused including Jarbe Sutero which later was
dismissed by the trial court. And during the preliminary investigation only Jelly Saavedra
appeared, while two other accused, namely Philip John Hilaga and Jarbe Sutero failed to appear.
Subpoena was issued to Philip John Hilaga but was returned with annotation ‘refuse to receive’.

Facts of the case

On Dec. 31, 2017, at around 10 pm, John Kevin Poral was walking with his friend Edel
John Juario on the footwalk at Zone 2, Brgy. Ungka Jaro, Iloilo City. By the by, they met
respondent Jelly Saavedra and Philip John Hilaga alias ‘Noy Jun Buang’ with other four
companions. Respondent Saavedra confronted Poral saying something to him that he once her
enemy, to which Poral answered that he doesn’t knew her and that he always roam around there.
Whereas, Poral offered his hands for a handshake but Saavedra gripped it hard, whence a
commotion began. Saavedra was pacified by her companions. However, when Poral turned his
back to leave Hilaga approached him and stabbed him twice in the back, which prompted him
and his friend Juario to flee. While waiting for a taxi, Sutero boxed Poral but was later pacified
by a bystander. Juario then brought Poral to nearby hospital for immediate treatment.

On the other hand, respondent Jelly Saavedra testified a different story, claiming that she
did not participate in the commission of the crime. That on the eve of Dec. 31, she met Poral
with his companion whom she greeted happy New Year, but the latter approached her insolently.
Altercation then ensued. She further stated that Poral suddenly punched her in the face which
made her dizzy, and then fell unconscious. She only known later that her mother pulled her
out. Wilma Saavedra, mother of the respondent, supported the testimony of her daughter.

Whereas, Sutero stated in his counter-affidavit that he was outside to buy a cigarette
when he saw at about 100 m. away Hilaga, Poral and Saavedra grappling, but when he
approached them he saw Hilaga ran away. He asked him what happened but did answer, instead
he continue running. When he was about 3 m. away he saw Poral kicking Saavedra while she
was on the pavement. He tried to separate them. Then after that Saavedra’s mother came, and
then the commotion stop. Finally, Sutero said that after that he continued to walk to the store to
buy cigarette.

While witness Mindalena Hermosura stated that while she was in their doorway she saw
Hilaga running towards the direction of the railway. Her statements supported those of Sutero.

Issue/s

Whether probable cause exist making the respondents guilty of the crime of frustrated murder;
and whether there exist a conspiracy among the respondents.

Analysis

The statements of Saavedra and Sutero contain the defense of denial. Saavedra claimed
that Poral punched her, however her claim was never supported by evidence. Failing to attach
any proof of her injuries concerning her allegations will make her claim speculative.

Furthermore, the fact that Poral suffered serious stab wounds which the respondents
failed to refute serves to corroborate the statements of Juario and Poral. Aside from this, the
location of the wounds, nature, and medical procedures which Poral underwent proves that the
wounds were fatal. That without prompt medical aid it would cause the death of Poral. In this
case it should be pointed out that the crime constitute frustrated murder. A felony is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator. Thus, it can be gleaned from the facts that all elements of frustrated
murder were present.

Likewise, the accusation that Hilaga stabbed Poral was never contested. As such, it well-
settled that it was Hilaga who was directly responsible for the stabbing of Poral. This claim was
supported by the statements of Sutero and Hermosura, whom testified that they saw Hilaga
running away. These circumstantial facts proved by the positive identification of complainant
and his witness are prima facie evidence of the crime committed.

On the issue of conspiracy, it can be deduced from the facts that Hilaga and Saavedra
conspired in the commission of the crime. Conspiracy to be appreciated does not depend on the
fact that there was an actual planning involving all perpetrators, and then the plan was together
executed, until the plan is successfully carried out which produced the desired outcome.
Conspiracy can be gleaned in the commonality of purpose with each individual party working
towards a common objective even without actual planning or express agreement prior to the
execution of the act. In the instant case, Saavedra and Hilaga were companions. It was Saavedra
who first confronted Poral and gripped his hand hard that led to a commotion, and then Hilaga,
armed with knife, and stabbed Poral from behind when the latter turned to leave. Hilaga and
Saavedra’s actions were simultaneously coordinated leading to the infliction of fatal wounds to
Poral which nearly caused his death.

As to Sutero, he must be dismissed, there being were no sufficient evidence that could
prove his direct participation in the commission of the crime. Facts showed that he only came
later when the commotion was already stopped. Thus, without sufficient probable cause that
could support his participation in the crime, the complaint against him be dismissed.

Conclusion

The evidences are conclusive and the facts unveiled the truth. That respondent Hilaga and
Saavedra committed the crime of frustrated murder has sufficient probable cause to hold them
responsible of the crime of frustrated murder. Based on the evidences and statements of the
witnesses, it was Hilaga who stabbed Poral, which was never contested. This will show that
indeed it was Hilaga who did the stabbing. Absence of proof to the contrary supports the
assumption in the commission of the crime. In the instant case, the inability of the respondents to
refute the accusation is tantamount to admission. Moreover, statements of the witnesses all point
to one direction, that is, to the respondents. Their actions showed that they conspired in the
commission of the crime, there being clear showing that they have the same purpose and
intention of attaining the common objective. Thus, with all evidences and facts against them, the
respondents, with sufficient probable cause, were found to be responsible of committing the
crime of frustrated murder.