Case Digest (G.R. No. 214426)
Facts:
Petitioner Rolen Peaaranda, along with four co-accused, was charged by the People of the Philippines with the crime of frustrated murder through an Information filed on March 9, 2006, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 723-M-2006. The accusation stemmed from an incident on June 5, 2005, at the tricycle terminal in Meycauayan, Bulacan, where the private complainant, Reynaldo Gutierrez y Suacoco, was allegedly attacked by petitioner and others armed with a samurai, steel pipes, and stones. The Information alleged that the accused conspired to kill Gutierrez, inflicting injuries that would have caused death but for timely medical intervention. At trial, the prosecution presented Gutierrez as the sole witness, recounting that petitioner threw a stone to wound him while others hacked and struck him. Gutierrez testified the attack involved treachery and abuse of superior strength. The defense denied petitioner’s involvement or intent to ki
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 214426)
Facts:
- Charging and Initial Proceedings
- On March 9, 2006, Rolen PeAaranda (petitioner) and four others were charged with frustrated murder for assaulting Reynaldo Gutierrez y Suacoco (Gutierrez) in Meycauayan, Bulacan on June 5, 2005.
- The Information alleged that the accused, armed with a samurai and lead pipe, conspired and attacked Gutierrez with intent to kill him. Acts of treachery and abuse of superior strength were also alleged.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment; trial on the merits ensued.
- Versions at Trial
- Prosecution’s Version (Gutierrez)
- Gutierrez, a tricycle driver, had filed a complaint against petitioner for excessive fare.
- On June 5, 2005, between 7:30 to 8:00 PM, Ivan Villaranda summoned petitioner and others to the tricycle terminal.
- Petitioner threw a stone hitting Gutierrez’s left arm. Gutierrez initially held a steel pipe but lowered his defense after Raul intervened.
- Edwin Celedonia alighted a tricycle and hacked Gutierrez with a samurai on his upper right biceps. Other assailants joined in hitting Gutierrez with steel pipes and stones.
- The assailants then fled, with Rannie throwing a steel pipe hitting Gutierrez’s stomach during escape.
- Gutierrez sought immediate medical help, resulting in issuance of medico-legal documents and photographs of injuries.
- Defense’s Version (Petitioner)
- Before June 5, Gutierrez had filed a complaint against petitioner for overpricing but petitioner denied the charge.
- Gutierrez cursed, threw a stone, and chased petitioner with a “panaksak” but a barangay official intervened.
- Petitioner claimed no actual confrontation occurred afterwards despite awareness that Gutierrez was following him.
- He denied throwing stones during the incident and denied being “Raul Kalbo,” an assailant named by Gutierrez.
- Decisions of Lower Courts
- Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision (May 14, 2012)
- Found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder.
- Rationale included: use of deadly weapons (samurai, steel pipe), petitioner’s prior threats, treachery based on victim’s lowered guard after Raul’s intervention, and abuse of superior strength.
- Absence of evident premeditation.
- Sentence: Indeterminate imprisonment of 4 years & 2 months (minimum) to 10 years (maximum); awarded P10,000 each as temperate, exemplary, and moral damages.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (September 26, 2014)
- Affirmed RTC decision with modification:
- Sentence reduced to 2 years 4 months (minimum) to 8 years (maximum).
- Damages awarded: P10,000 temperate, P10,000 exemplary, P20,000 moral, all with 6% interest.
- Found abuse of superior strength but ruled out treachery since Gutierrez was armed at the time of attack.
- Conspiracy was established based on coordinated attack and deception to disarm the victim.
- Accepted Gutierrez’s credibility and rejected petitioner’s alibi as unsubstantiated.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner is guilty of the crime of attempted murder.
- Whether the attendant circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and conspiracy are present.
- What is the appropriate penalty and damages.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)