Understanding Aberratio Ictus When A Missed Shot Leads To Complex Crimes In Philippine Law

The doctrine of aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow, is one of the more challenging concepts in Philippine criminal law. It arises when an offender aims at one person but hits another. In People v. Bendecio (G.R. No. 235016, September 8, 2020), the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify how this doctrine operates when a single gunshot results in both an attempted felony and a consummated killing. The ruling is a valuable guide for understanding complex crimes and how treachery is appreciated even when the actual victim was not the intended target.

The Facts of the Case

On December 24, 2011, around midnight, Gerry Marasigan was closing the front door of his home in Muntinlupa City when he noticed Nestor Bendecio standing just outside. Without warning, Bendecio drew a gun, aimed at Gerry, and fired. The bullet missed Gerry but struck his seven-year-old daughter, Jonabel, in the chest before also hitting his sister, Princess, in the leg. Jonabel died the following day.

Bendecio denied involvement and claimed he was in Samar at the time of the incident. However, both Gerry and Princess positively identified him as the shooter. The prosecution charged Bendecio with the complex crime of attempted murder with murder.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Bendecio could be convicted of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder, given that his single act of firing a gun resulted in an attempted killing of Gerry and the actual killing of Jonabel.

The Ruling: A Single Act, Two Crimes

The Supreme Court affirmed Bendecio's conviction. The Court ruled that his single act of firing the gun constituted two separate felonies: attempted murder against Gerry and murder against Jonabel. Under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on complex crimes, a complex crime exists when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. In such cases, the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period.

Treachery in Attempted Murder

The Court first examined whether treachery qualified the attempted killing of Gerry. Treachery exists when the offender employs means of execution that ensure safety from any defense or retaliatory act, and such means were deliberately chosen. The Court cited People v. Amora (748 Phil. 608, 2014) in holding that a frontal attack can still be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected on an unarmed victim who is in no position to repel it.

Here, Gerry was unarmed and closing his door when Bendecio suddenly drew his gun and fired. Gerry had no opportunity to defend himself. Thus, treachery attended the attempted murder.

Applying Aberratio Ictus to the Killing

Regarding Jonabel's death, the Court applied the doctrine of aberratio ictus. Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Jonabel's death was the natural and direct consequence of Bendecio's felonious assault against Gerry.

Significantly, the Court ruled that treachery could also qualify Jonabel's killing, even though she was not the intended victim. Citing People v. Flora (389 Phil. 601, 2000), the Court held that just because Jonabel was not the intended target did not make the sudden attack any less treacherous. As a seven-year-old child who had no opportunity to defend herself, she was a helpless victim of a sudden, unexpected attack.

Penalty and Damages

Because murder is the more serious crime, the Court imposed the penalty for murder in its maximum period. Under the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. However, due to Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the Court sentenced Bendecio to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Following People v. Jugueta (783 Phil. 806, 2016), the Court awarded damages for each component of the complex crime: P100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for the murder of Jonabel, plus P50,000 temperate damages; and P25,000 each for the attempted murder of Gerry.

Practical Takeaways

• A single act can produce multiple crimes. When one pull of the trigger results in both an attempted killing and an actual killing, the offender may be liable for a complex crime under the Revised Penal Code.
• Aberratio ictus does not erase liability. An offender is responsible for the natural and logical consequences of a felonious act, even if the actual victim was not the intended one.
• Treachery can apply to unintended victims. The suddenness and unexpectedness of an attack can qualify the resulting crime as murder, even where the actual victim was not the target.
• Denial and alibi are weak defenses. These defenses cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
• Damages are awarded per crime. In complex crimes, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are granted for each component offense.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.