Case Digest (G.R. No. 135222)
Facts:
Peter Andrada v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135222, March 04, 2005, the Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.
In an Information dated January 7, 1987, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City charged petitioner Peter Andrada with frustrated murder for allegedly hacking Cpl. Arsenio Ugerio twice on the head with a bolo on or about September 24, 1986, injuries which, but for timely medical attention, would have resulted in death. Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment on February 9, 1987 and was tried.
At trial the prosecution's evidence established that on the night of September 23–24, 1986, military policemen including T/Sgt. Teodolfo Sumabong, Sgt. Gaces and Cpl. Ugerio went to a boarding house and later stopped at Morlow’s Restaurant in Baguio City. While the group was there, petitioner approached a table where Cpl. Ugerio was seated and, after an exchange, suddenly hacked Ugerio on the head with a bolo; witnesses and arresting officers identified petitioner and the bolo was recovered. Medical testimony described a scalping avulsion and a depressed comminuted skull fracture with brain laceration; the victim survived but suffered severe sequelae.
Petitioner testified in his defense invoking self‑defense, claiming that military men had assaulted and threatened him and that he acted to save his life; he also asserted the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, maintaining he later surrendered to police. Trial counsel for petitioner participated in cross‑examination but did not call additional witnesses or present medical evidence allegedly supporting petitioner’s version.
The trial court found petitioner guilty of frustrated murder and sentenced him to a determinate prison term and damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR No. 15851 affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term (prision correccional as minimum to prision mayor as maximum), having found the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority (petitioner was 17 years, 9 months and 20 days at the time) applicable. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied in a Resolution dated August 13, 1998.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the appellate decision and resolution, raising four principal issues: alleged deprivation of due proces...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s constitutional right to due process violated by alleged gross incompetence or negligence of his trial counsel?
- Did petitioner establish self‑defense by clear and convincing evidence?
- Was the proper conviction frustrated murder (with treachery) or frustrated homicide?
- Is petitioner entitled to the mitigating circums...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)