Case Digest (G.R. No. 206632)
Facts:
Eden Etino, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent, G.R. No. 206632, February 14, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.On November 5, 2001, Jessierel Leyble was shot while walking home in Maasin, Iloilo. An Information dated June 19, 2003 charged petitioner Eden Etino with frustrated homicide for allegedly firing a 12‑gauge shotgun that hit Leyble; upon arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial followed. The prosecution relied on testimony from Leyble and eyewitness Isidro Maldecir, and on medical records for Leyble (medical certificate, trauma sheet, admission/discharge and operative records) introduced through Nida Villarete Sonza, custodian of hospital records at West Visayas State University Medical Center (WVSUMC), but did not present the treating physician in court.
Petitioner presented an alibi through witnesses Bautista Etino, Wenifred Besares, Joeseryl Masiado and his own testimony, claiming he was elsewhere at the time; his defense also asserted that Leyble harbored ill motive because petitioner had testified against Leyble in a pending COMELEC gun‑ban case.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Iloilo City, in a January 14, 2008 Decision found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide and imposed a prison term (two years, four months and one day to eight years and one day) but declined to award damages, concluding the civil aspect was not sufficiently proven. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in an August 29, 2012 Decision affirmed with modification: it sustained petitioner’s conviction but ordered payment of P25,000.00 moral damages and P10,000.00 temperate damages to Leyble. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a March 11, 2013 Resolution.
Petitioner...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the CA err in holding that petitioner’s guilt for frustrated homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the non‑presentation of the physician who treated the victim?
- Did the CA err in finding the testimonies of petitioner and his witnesses incredible and in crediting the prosecution witnesses’ identifications?
- Did the CA err in disregarding petitioner’s defenses — delay in filing, alleged failure of positive identification...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)