Case Digest (G.R. No. 183566)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Bonifacio Badriago, G.R. No. 183566, May 08, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution charged Bonifacio Badriago before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with two separate offenses arising from a single attack on September 13, 2002 in Carigara, Leyte: Criminal Case No. 4255 (frustrated homicide of Adrian Quinto) and Criminal Case No. 4276 (murder of Oliver Quinto). The informations alleged that accused used a long bolo (sundang) to inflict multiple hacking and stab wounds on both brothers; Adrian survived after extensive hospitalization and surgery but Oliver died from multiple fatal wounds.
At trial the prosecution presented medical and eyewitness testimony: Adrian’s account of being suddenly hacked; Dr. Frederic Asanza’s and Dr. Ma. Bella Profetana’s medical and post‑mortem findings (Dr. Profetana testifying that eight of eleven wounds on Oliver were fatal and that death resulted from hypovolemic shock); and testimony by Victoriano Quinto on expenses. The defense offered accused’s own testimony claiming he acted in incomplete self‑defense during a pedicab altercation and a witness, Rodolfo Gabon, who corroborated a chase and a scuffle in which Adrian allegedly drew a short bolo.
On July 29, 2004, the RTC convicted accused: in Criminal Case No. 4255 it found him guilty of frustrated homicide (the RTC’s fallo actually stated “frustrated murder” but described facts of frustrated homicide) and in Criminal Case No. 4276 it convicted him of murder and imposed the death penalty; the trial court awarded damages for both cases. Because the death penalty was imposed, the records were initially transmitted to the Supreme Court on automatic review; pursuant to People v. Mateo the case was sent to the Court of Appeals (CA) by resolution dated February 15, 2005.
The CA, in CA G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 00129 (Decision dated April 22, 2008), partially granted the appeal: it found accused guilty only of frustrated homicide in Case No. 4255 and of murder in Case No. 4276, reduced and re‑computed the penalties, and adjusted the awards for civil and oth...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting accused‑appellant of frustrated homicide and murder when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, incomplete self‑defense, and lack of intention to ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)