Facts:

In the case of Peter Andrada vs. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135222, the petitioner, Peter Andrada, challenges the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding his conviction for frustrated murder. The incident took place on September 24, 1986, in Baguio City, Philippines, when Andrada attacked Corporal Arsenio Ugerio with a bolo, inflicting serious injuries. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City filed an Information on January 7, 1987, charging him with frustrated murder, asserting he acted with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, though the victim survived due to timely medical intervention. Upon arraignment on February 9, 1987, Andrada pleaded not guilty.

During the trial, evidence presented included testimonies from military personnel who witnessed the attack and a forensic examination revealing severe injuries to the victim's head. Andrada claimed self-defense, arguing he was provoked by Ugerio and others who allegedly assaulted hi

...

Facts:

Chronology of the Incident

• In an Information dated January 7, 1987, petitioner Peter Andrada was charged with frustrated murder for attacking Arsenio Ugerio in Baguio City during the night of September 24, 1986.
• The charge alleged that petitioner, with evident premeditation and treachery, attacked and hacked the victim on the head with a bolo, inflicting severe injuries that would have been fatal if not for timely medical intervention.

Events Leading to the Charge

• On September 23, 1986, around 11:30 p.m., T/Sgt. Teodolfo Sumabong of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) was resting in the Camp Dado Dangwa barracks when Rommel Alcate called requesting assistance regarding suspicious persons near his boarding house in Baguio.
• Sgt. Sumabong, along with Sgt. Gaces and Cpl. Arsenio Ugerio, responded and later, after passing through Morlowas Restaurant, where they had paused for coffee and snacks, became involved in the unfolding events.

Sequence of Events at Morlowas Restaurant

• Inside the restaurant, while Cpl. Ugerio was conversing with a woman, petitioner Peter Andrada approached and scolded him.
• Sgt. Sumabong, identifying himself as a non-commissioned officer, instructed petitioner to settle his bill and leave as he appeared intoxicated. Petitioner complied and exited the restaurant with companions.
• Shortly afterward, while Sumabong was paying his bill, a commotion ensued when he observed Cpl. Ugerio on the floor moaning in pain, having been hacked on the head with a bolo by petitioner.
• Petitioner's attempt to flee the scene was foiled by Sgt. Sumabong’s pursuit and subsequent arrest, with the bolo being recovered at the restaurant.

Medical and Evidentiary Findings

• The victim sustained two major injuries: a skull and scalp avulsion (approximately 5 centimeters wide) and a depressed comminuted skull fracture (approximately 6 centimeters wide) on the right parieto-occipital area, injuries that, under different circumstances, would have been fatal.
• Medical reports indicated that timely treatment (including craniectomy, debridement, and dural repair) prevented the victim’s death, constituting the basis for charging the crime as frustrated murder.

Trial, Verdict, and Sentencing

• During arraignment on February 9, 1987, petitioner pleaded not guilty and entered his plea with counsel de parte.
• After the trial, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from 8 years and 20 days to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days, alongside financial indemnity for the victim’s medical expenses.
• The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s penalty considering the mitigating circumstance of minority, sentencing petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum and eight (8) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor as maximum.
• Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals, prompting his petition for review on certiorari.

Alleged Grounds of Appeal and Contentions Raised

• Petitioner argued that his constitutional right to due process was violated based on alleged deficiencies in his counsel’s performance, asserting that:
• Counsel failed to present witnesses who could testify to his innocence.
• There was a failure to submit pertinent medical certificates and a memorandum, as well as negligence in notifying him to attend crucial parts of the hearing.
• He also invoked self-defense alleging that he acted in response to an unlawful aggression by military personnel.
• Additionally, petitioner contended that, assuming guilt, he should be convicted of frustrated homicide rather than frustrated murder, asserting that treachery was not present in his act.
• Finally, he maintained that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have lessened his penalty given his eventual surrender to law enforcement.

Reference to Precedents and Counsel’s Performance

• The case references several instances where alleged gross negligence by counsel resulted in reversed or remanded decisions (e.g., US v. Gimenez, Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, Reyes v. Court of Appeals, and People v. Bascuiguin).
• However, the record in the present case shows that petitioner’s counsel actively participated in cross-examination, and the failure to call additional witnesses was not considered a violation of due process.

Issue:

Due Process Violation

• Whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated due to alleged gross incompetence or negligence on the part of his counsel in the presentation of his defense.

Validity of the Self-Defense Claim

• Whether petitioner’s plea of self-defense is justified, particularly in view of the burden on him to prove that his actions were in defense against an unlawful aggression.

Nature of the Crime Committed

• Whether the crime committed by petitioner constitutes frustrated murder, which involves elements such as treachery, or whether it should be reduced to frustrated homicide, reflecting a less culpable intent.

Entitlement to Mitigating Circumstances

• Whether petitioner is entitled to any mitigating circumstance such as the voluntary surrender, and whether the circumstances of his surrender meet the required standards of spontaneity and acknowledgment of guilt.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)