G.R. No. 47722 - People vs. Oanis

The petitioner, Arellano Novicio, was charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide as detailed in an Information dated December 11, 1998.
The incident allegedly occurred on September 24, 1998, at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening in Bacong, San Luis, Aurora, during a birthday celebration at the house of Reynaldo Novicio.
The Information stated that with intent to kill, the petitioner attacked private complainant Mario Mercado by shooting him with a short firearm, resulting in a serious gunshot wound that, under normal circumstances, could have been fatal.

The petitioner voluntarily surrendered, posted bail for provisional liberty amounting to P24,000.00, and had his warrant of arrest recalled.
At arraignment on January 29, 1999, he pleaded not guilty, thereby setting the stage for a trial on the merits.
During trial, two distinct versions of events emerged, resulting in material conflicts described by the Court of Appeals (CA).

According to Mario Mercado, he was present at the party with several acquaintances when the petitioner arrived and sat with them.
The petitioner allegedly drew a gun, pointed a threatening remark (“Huwag kang tatayo, Boy”), and then shot Mario as he was about to stand.
Subsequent events included Mario fleeing to a nearby house, with additional testimonies from his wife (Maricris Mercado) and his father-in-law (Demetrio Valenzuela) corroborating his account.
It was also testified that prior animosity existed, including an incident on July 23, 1998, when the petitioner allegedly pointed a gun at Mario.

The petitioner claimed that he arrived at the gathering and was invited to join the conversation, but tensions escalated when Mario reportedly provoked him.
As the interaction intensified, Mario is alleged to have drawn a .38 caliber revolver and aimed it at the petitioner, prompting him to act in self-defense.
The petitioner asserted that, in an effort to disarm or deflect the aggression, he engaged with Mario in a struggle over the firearm which resulted in its discharge accidentally.
His account further stated that, after the scuffle, his brother Reynaldo urged him to flee for his safety, and he subsequently returned home the following morning.

The petitioner and his witness group maintained that after the incident, Mario ran away carrying his gun and later handed it to his father-in-law, Demetrio Valenzuela.
Conversely, Mario testified that he sought refuge in a room in Reynaldo Novicio’s house, with Shelly Novicio-Iporac corroborating the version that he did not immediately take possession of his weapon.

Medical findings by Dr. Roberto Correa showed that the injury consisted of a gunshot wound entering at the right pubic area and exiting at the left gluteus.
Dr. Correa testified that the nature and location of the wound were such that, if untreated, it could have been fatal.
Due to the serious nature of the injury, Mario was transferred to a specialized research and medical center for further treatment.

On May 9, 2001, the RTC found material inconsistencies in the petitioner’s account and that his witnesses’ testimonies raised serious questions regarding their candor and credibility.
The RTC convicted the petitioner of frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt, basing its decision on, among other factors, the nature of the wound, the weapon used, and the available medical evidence.
The petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to a maximum of eight (8) years of prision mayor, with costs imposed.

On July 31, 2003, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto, emphasizing the credibility and reliability of the victim’s and other prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
The CA discarded the petitioner’s self-defense claim and his argument that his actions did not manifest an intent to kill.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by the petitioner, filed later, was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated April 20, 2004.

The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim of self-defense, contending that he was merely defending himself against an aggressive victim.
He also argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish his intent to kill, noting the single wound sustained and attempting to challenge the severity of the injury as interpreted by medical testimony.
Additionally, the petitioner alleged a question of law regarding the proper application of the self-defense doctrine and the assessment of witness credibility.

Whether the petitioner sufficiently established that he acted in self-defense:

Was there evidence of unlawful aggression on the part of Mario Mercado to justify a self-defense claim?
Did the circumstances, including the conduct at the party and the ensuing struggle over the firearm, support a claim of self-defense by the petitioner?

Did the nature and location of the single gunshot wound, in conjunction with the use of a lethal weapon, signify a clear intent to kill?
Could the petitioner’s actions be interpreted as having an intent to kill rather than a mere defensive response?

Whether the lower courts’ findings on credibility and factual inconsistencies were erroneous:

Was there a manifest error in the assessment and weighing of witness testimonies by the RTC and later by the CA?
Did the petitioner fail to demonstrate that the inconsistencies in his version of events were significant enough to raise reasonable doubt regarding his intent?