Case Digest (G.R. No. 136037)
Facts:
Severino David, Jr. y Echane and Timoteo Gianan v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 136037, August 13, 2008, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners, Severino David, Jr. and Timoteo Gianan, were tried for frustrated homicide under Article 50 in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code after an Information dated March 2, 1992 charged them with conspiring to stab and otherwise assault Domingo Datalio.At arraignment both accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented the victim Domingo Datalio, SPO3 Francisco Montallana and barangay tanod Benigno David as witnesses. The defense presented the testimony of petitioner David and Erlin Ecalnir. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 171, Valenzuela, convicted petitioners of frustrated homicide and imposed indeterminate prison terms (minimum four years two months and one day of Prision Correccional to maximum eight years and one day of Prision Mayor), ordered indemnity for actual damages and unearned income, and imposed accessory penalties.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR No. 17022. The CA, in a Decision dated July 30, 1997, affirmed the RTC in toto. Petitioners moved for reconsideration before the CA, which denied the motion in a Resolution dated October 9, 1998. Thereafter, petitioner Severino David (with counsel filing for both defendants in some filings) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on December 10, 1998, raising primarily (1) alleged misappreciation of facts by the trial court and CA and (2) that self‑defense was credible and uncontroverted. Timoteo Gianan did not join the Rule 45 petition. The matter reached the Supreme Court by Rule 45 review.
The factual dispute at trial concerned conflicting versions: the prosecution witnesses testified that petitioners attacked the victim—David stabbed Datalio while Gianan attempted to strike him with an adobe stone—after which police were able to secure suspects and the weapon; the defense claimed the victim, intoxicated, had challenged and then stabbed petitioner David, w...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Rule 45 petition procedurally proper to re‑examine and overturn the trial court’s credibility findings?
- Did the accused sustain the burden to establish self‑defense such that their convictions for frustrated homicide must be reversed?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy and hold Gianan ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)