Facts:
Fe Abella y Perpetua (petitioner) was charged in an Information dated October 7, 1998 with
frustrated homicide for allegedly hacking his younger brother,
Benigno Abella, on September 6, 1998 at about 11:00 p.m. at Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City, with the use of two scythes, inflicting an eleven-centimeter hacking wound on the left lateral aspect of the neck and a four-centimeter incised wound on the left hand; Benigno was hospitalized from September 6, 1998 to September 23, 1998 and later testified that he lost the use of his left hand and incurred medical expenses in excess of P10,000.00 but lost the receipts. The petitioner remained at large until his arrest by the NBI on October 7, 2002; at trial he pleaded not guilty and presented defenses of denial and alibi supported by three witnesses whose testimonies the trial court found inconsistent, while the prosecution presented the testimonies of Benigno, Amelita Abella, Alejandro Tayrus, and Dr. Roberto Ardiente who described the wounds and opined that the injuries could have resulted in death without timely medical intervention. On July 13, 2006, the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City convicted the petitioner of
frustrated homicide under the
Revised Penal Code and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day to eight years of prision mayor as minimum and ten years and one day to twelve years of prision mayor as maximum, ordered payment of P10,000.00 as actual damages for medical expenses and P100,000.00 as consequential damages, plus costs. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals on October 26, 2010 affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to six months and one day to six years of prision correccional as minimum and eight years and one day of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum, deleted the awards of actual and consequential damages, and ordered payment of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as temperate damages; the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45, which the Supreme Court resolved by a decision promulgated on October 7, 2013.
Issues:
Did the courts a quo err in finding that the petitioner had the intent to kill and in convicting him of
frustrated homicide?
Did the courts a quo err in the awards of actual, consequential, moral, and temperate damages to the offended party?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: