1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Hence,
evidence of intent to kill is required only in attempted or frustrated
There is no crime of frustrated homicide through negligence/imprudence.
Physical injuries are one of the essential elements of frustrated
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide.
In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is brought about
by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill and without
homicidal intent, there is no liability.
When the wounds that caused death were inflicted by 2 different persons,
even if they were not in conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of
In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an
element, there must be satisfactory evidence of
(1) the fact of death and
(2) the identity of the victim.
Penalty shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law when the
victim is under 12 years of age
When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a
victim but it cannot be determined who inflicted which would which
caused the death of the victim, all are liable for the victim’s death.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill. In
physical injuries, there is none. However, if as a result of the
physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the crime will be
homicide because the law punishes the result, and not the intent of
Corpus delicti – actual commission of crime charged
PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 152176, 10/1/03
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently
established by the prosecution. The prosecution witness did not see
the actual stabbing of the victim. Therefore, there is no way of
determining on how the attack was initiated. In the same way that
no testimony would prove that the appellant contemplated upon the
mode to insure the killing. The crime committed by appellant is
GOROSPE vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 147974. 1/29/04
No error was committed by the trial court in characterizing the
felonious assault as frustrated homicide and convicting appellant
therefor. The appellant acted with intent to kill in firing the gun at
Miguel. Usually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon
used by the offender and the parts of the victim’s body at which the
weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted.
ARADILLOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 135619, 1/15/04
An accused may be convicted of slight, less serious or serious physical
injuries in a prosecution for homicide or murder, inasmuch as the
infliction of physical injuries could lead to any of the latter
offenses when carried to its utmost degree despite the fact that an
essential requisite of the crime of homicide or murder - intent to
kill - is not required in a prosecution for physical injuries.
People v. Castillo
There is no offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence.
Accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on prescription but
erroneously used a highly poisonous substance. When taken by the patient,
the latter nearly died. Accused is guilty only of physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. The element of intent to kill in frustrated
homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.