Facts:
Background and Charging
- On 5 March 2004, petitioner Carlos Jay Adlawan was charged with Frustrated Murder and Attempted Robbery through two separate Informations.
- During arraignment on 25 March 2004, the petitioner, with counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
- The case was trialed on the merits with the prosecution presenting evidence to establish the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in relation to frustrated homicide.
Narrative of the Incident (18 February 2004)
- Events Leading Up to the Incident
- At around 5:30 P.M., private complainant Georgia R. Adlawan, who was the petitioner’s stepmother, arrived at the family residence in Brgy. Lipata, Minglanilla, Cebu.
- Prior to the incident, Georgia had instructed her secretary, Maria Reina Lastimosa, to withdraw P100,000.00 from a bank to pay for the hospital bills of the late Alfonso V. Adlawan, who was Georgia’s husband and the petitioner’s father.
- Georgia heard the petitioner conversing with Cornelio Selin, a household employee, in the backyard.
- While Georgia was in the midst of questioning Cornelio about the conversation, she encountered the petitioner. The petitioner, who was jobless and had undergone a leg operation necessitating a stainless steel brace, was reported to have provoked Georgia by asking “asa ang kwarta?” (“where is the money?”).
- A heated verbal exchange ensued in which Georgia explained that she had already arranged for money withdrawal to cover hospital bills.
- The petitioner, enraged by her response, verbally insulted her (“mura kag kinsa!” – “as if you are somebody!”) and proceeded to attack her using a long-bladed weapon (referred to as a katana).
- The petitioner reportedly hacked at Georgia, inflicting wounds on the left portion of her neck, stomach, shoulders, and back.
- In a desperate act to fend off the assault, Georgia parried the blows, ran toward the garage, and eventually counterattacked by kicking the petitioner and grabbing his sex organ.
- Following the fall of the petitioner, Georgia managed to escape and immediately sought medical attention at Baking Medical Hospital and later at Perpetual Succour Hospital.
Evidence and Witness Testimonies Presented by the Prosecution
- Witness Testimonies and Physical Evidence
- Testimonies of Fred John Dahay, an eyewitness, corroborated that Georgia was chased and hacked by the petitioner.
- Georgia’s secretary, Maria Reina, confirmed that she had been instructed to withdraw money for hospital bills.
- Several police officers provided evidence following the search of the petitioner’s room (notably, the seizure of a weapon occurred without a search warrant or the petitioner’s consent).
- Dr. Rogelio Kangleon of Perpetual Succour Hospital detailed Georgia’s injuries in a medical certificate, attesting to multiple lacerations, contusions, and hack wounds on various parts of her body.
- Photographs taken by Charlita Gloria further supported the nature and severity of the wounds, aligning with the prosecution’s claim of a homicidal intent.
Defense Testimony and Arguments
- Sole Witness of the Defense
- Cornelio, a long-time household employee, testified that on the day of the incident he was engaged in routine work when he encountered both Georgia and the petitioner.
- He recounted that upon being asked by the petitioner about his destination, he later observed Georgia running toward a multicab while the petitioner followed close behind.
- Cornelio denied witnessing the petitioner actually hack Georgia.
- He also refuted the allegation that the petitioner was armed with the long-bladed weapon during the incident.
- The defense attempted to portray Georgia’s account as inconsistent, suggesting that her injuries might have been sustained accidentally when she slipped while boarding the multicab.
- The RTC rendered a joint judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-68828 and CBU-68829.
- Petitioner was acquitted of attempted robbery for lack of overt act evidencing a robbery but was convicted for frustrated homicide.
- The RTC found that the petitioner had indeed hacked Georgia repeatedly, which resulted in multiple deep injuries.
- Victim identification by Georgia and corroborative testimony from Fred were determinative.
- The court noted aggravating circumstances, specifically the abuse of superior strength and the additional disrespect shown towards Georgia as a stepmother.
- The petitioner was sentenced, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to imprisonment ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional (minimum) to twelve (12) years of prision mayor (maximum).
- He was also ordered to indemnify Georgia with P30,000.00 as moral damages and cover all her medical expenses, with the provision of non-subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Appellate Court (CA) Ruling
- Affirmation with Modification
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction for frustrated homicide but modified the penalty to a range of six (6) years of prision correccional (minimum) to ten (10) years of prision mayor (maximum).
- The CA observed that the trial court erred in attributing aggravating circumstances (abuse of superior strength and insult/disregard due to age, sex, and familial relation) which were not explicitly alleged in the information.
- On 7 October 2010, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, followed by a joint motion (supported by Georgia’s affidavit of recantation and desistance) to dismiss the case.
- Georgia’s affidavit, executed on 10 December 2010, claimed that her injuries were accidental—a recantation of her earlier testimony.
- The CA denied both motions, holding that a mere affidavit of desistance is insufficient by itself to dismiss a case once instituted, given that the credibility of open-court testimony carries greater weight.
Petition for Review on Certiorari in the Supreme Court
- Grounds Raised by the Petitioner
- The petitioner argued that there was grave failure of appellate review, as the CA allegedly did not review issues concerning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence.
- He further contended that the illegal seizure and presentation of the weapon should have impacted the evidentiary determination.
- Lastly, he argued that the CA erred in disregarding Georgia’s affidavit of recantation and desistance which, he claimed, should lead to dismissal.
- The Supreme Court held that the petition raised issues of fact (such as witness credibility and evidentiary evaluation), which are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The wrongful seizure of the weapon was noted; however, the court determined that its inadmissibility did not affect the overall identification and the weight of the physical evidence.
- The Court emphasized that retractions made post-conviction, such as Georgia’s affidavit, are inherently unreliable and insufficient as a sole basis for reversal of the conviction.
Issue:
Whether there was grave failure of appellate review by the Court of Appeals, specifically in not reevaluating the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the proper presentation of the weapon.
- The petitioner argued that the CA’s decision was void due to its failure to conduct a real and thorough review of these aspects.
Whether the CA erred in disregarding the private complainant’s affidavit of recantation and desistance as a ground to dismiss the case.
- The petitioner contended that Georgia’s affidavit, which recanted her earlier testimony, should have led to the dismissal of the criminal case.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: