Case Digest (G.R. No. 197645)
Facts:
Carlos Jay Adlawan, G.R. No. 197645, April 18, 2018, the Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner, Carlos Jay Adlawan, sought review of the Court of Appeals’ 15 September 2010 Decision and 15 June 2011 Resolution in CA‑G.R. CR No. 00555, which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 5’s 17 August 2006 Joint Judgment convicting him of frustrated homicide (and acquitting him of attempted robbery).On 5 March 2004 petitioner was charged by information with frustrated murder and attempted robbery (two informations). He pleaded not guilty on 25 March 2004 and trial ensued. The prosecution’s evidence established that petitioner was the stepson of private complainant Georgia R. Adlawan; on 18 February 2004 Georgia was allegedly chased and hacked with a long-bladed weapon at the Adlawans’ residence, suffering multiple deep lacerations. Georgia and eyewitness Fred John Dahay positively identified petitioner as the assailant. Photographs and a medical certificate by Dr. Rogelio Kangleon showed hack-type wounds; Dr. Kangleon testified that the neck wound could have been fatal but for timely treatment.
Petitioner’s defense presented Cornelio (the houseboy) who testified that Georgia slipped and fell and that he did not see petitioner hack her; petitioner did not testify. PSI Mallari admitted in cross-examination that a weapon found in petitioner’s room was seized without warrant or consent.
The RTC, in a joint judgment, acquitted petitioner of attempted robbery but convicted him of frustrated homicide, finding that petitioner performed all acts of execution necessary for homicide and applying aggravating circumstances (abuse of superior strength; disregard of respect due to offended party). The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence and awarded moral and medical damages. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The CA, in its 15 September 2010 Decision, affirmed the RTC’s conviction for frustrated homicide but modified the penalty because the alleged aggravating circumstances had not been alleged in the information. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On 28 December 2010 petitioner and Georgia filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss and an affidavit of recantation/desistance executed by Georgia on 10 December 2010, wherein she claimed her injuries were accidental; the CA denied the joint motion in its 15 June 2011 Resolution, holding that an affidavit of desistance alo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave failure of appellate review, rendering its decision void (a procedural question concerning adequacy of appellate review and possible denial of due process)?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in disregarding the private complainant’s affidavit of recantation and desistance and declare that such affidavit is not, by i...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)