G.R. No. 198400 - Abella y Perpetua vs. People

On or about September 6, 1998, at approximately 11:00 p.m., the petitioner, Fe Abella y Perpetua, allegedly attacked his younger brother, Benigno Abella y Perpetua, at Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City using two scythes.
The attack involved a hacking blow to the neck and a directed strike toward the stomach, actions that under the circumstances constituted frustrated homicide under Article 249 in relation to Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code.
The medical evidence, provided by Dr. Roberto Ardiente, indicated that Benigno sustained a hacking wound approximately 11 centimeters in length on the lateral aspect of his neck and a 4-centimeter incised wound on his left hand.

After the filing of the Information, the petitioner remained at large until his eventual arrest on October 7, 2002, by the National Bureau of Investigation.
At arraignment, the petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, prompting the conduct of pre-trial and trial proceedings where evidentiary testimonies were extensively presented by both the prosecution and the defense.

Testimonies from Benigno and his wife, Amelita, along with other witnesses such as Alejandro Tayrus and the surgeon Dr. Roberto Ardiente, consistently identified the petitioner as the assailant.
The eyewitness accounts detailed how Benigno, initially involved in calming the petitioner at another scene, was later attacked when he tried to block the petitioner’s entry into a house, leading to the fatal hacking blow at the victim’s neck.
Medical records and the testimony of Dr. Ardiente affirmed the nature, location, and seriousness of the wounds, emphasizing that the neck wound was potentially fatal had it not been for timely medical intervention.

The petitioner, along with witnesses Fernando Fernandez and Urbano Cabag, offered an alibi and a denial of his presence at the scene, contending that he was in another locality (Buenavista, Agusan del Norte) at the time of the incident.
The defense argued that the single hacking blow, combined with the subsequent chase after other persons (Alejandro and Dionisio), negated any intent to kill and instead pointed to an accidental occurrence.
The defense’s narrative was weakened by inconsistencies in the testimonies of the alibi witnesses and the lack of disinterested corroboration.

The Regional Trial Court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of frustrated homicide.
The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years as minimum, and from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years as maximum in prision mayor.
Additionally, the RTC imposed the payment of P100,000.00 as consequential damages and P10,000.00 for medical expenses incurred by the victim.

The CA affirmed the conviction based on the factual findings of the RTC but modified the penalty by applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

The minimum penalty was recalculated as six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years in prision correccional.
The maximum penalty was set as eight (8) years and one (1) day in the medium period of prision mayor.

The CA also deleted the RTC’s award for actual (medical) and consequential damages due to insufficient proof, instead awarding the victim moral and temperate damages.

Initially, the awards were set at P30,000.00 for moral damages and P10,000.00 for temperate damages; subsequent modifications later fixed these at P25,000.00 each, with interest accruing from the date of finality.

Whether the evidence, particularly the use of a scythe and the nature of the injuries inflicted (a single hacking blow to the neck), sufficiently established the petitioner’s intent to kill.
Whether the presence of two attacks (one on the neck and one toward the stomach) indicates premeditation and deliberation in intent.

Whether the inconsistencies in the alibi testimonies and the absence of disinterested corroboration warranted the rejection of the petitioner’s defenses.
Whether the petitioner’s claim that he pursued others (Alejandro and Dionisio) instead of further attacking Benigno negates an intent to kill.

Whether the courts a quo erred by addressing factual issues in a petition for review, which under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is typically confined to pure questions of law.
Whether the petition’s factual challenges require a re-calibration of evidence, thus falling outside the ambit of a proper certiorari review.

Whether the CA properly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in reducing the petitioner’s minimum and maximum penalties.
Whether the adjustment of damage awards from RT‑determined actual and consequential damages to moral and temperate damages was legally and factually justified.