Case Digest (G.R. No. 237334)
Facts:
CICL XXX v. People of the Philippines and Glenn Redoquerio, G.R. No. 237334, November 16, 2020, the Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is CICL XXX (a child in conflict with the law whose real name is withheld under Republic Act No. 9344); the respondents are the People of the Philippines and private complainant Glenn Redoquerio.
An Information charged CICL XXX, then 17 years old, with frustrated homicide for an attack on January 1, 2010 in Quezon City during which the complaint alleges that CICL XXX, together with Christopher Puyo and Jayjay Narag, attacked Redoquerio, struck him in the head (including with a stone) and inflicted injuries that would have caused death but for timely medical treatment. At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty; pre-trial and trial followed.
At trial the prosecution presented Redoquerio and eyewitness Michael de los Santos; it also introduced medical records via Reginaldo Luague, an administrative officer at East Avenue Medical Center, pursuant to a stipulation that Luague could identify and authenticate the records but could not testify as to the nature, gravity or fatality of the wounds. The defense presented CICL XXX's denial and an alibi/alternative narrative that he was elsewhere and that he and his family went to the scene only after hearing a commotion.
The Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 94) in a Decision dated September 2, 2016 convicted CICL XXX of frustrated homicide, sentenced him to an indeterminate term, and awarded damages to Redoquerio. The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR No. 39177 affirmed in a decision dated September 5, 2017 and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated January 18, 2018. CICL XXX filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45)...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding CICL XXX's conviction despite the prosecution's failure to prove that he acted with discernment?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting CICL XXX of Frustrated Homicide without proof of the extent and fatality of the injuries sust...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)