Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16488)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Juan Raquinio, G.R. No. L-16488, August 12, 1966, Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court. The information charged defendant-appellant Juan Raquinio with frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. 2909 before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte; the trial court found him guilty, applied the aggravating circumstance of treachery (but mitigated by voluntary surrender), imposed an indeterminate penalty one degree lower than the prescribed penalty for frustrated homicide, ordered indemnity of P170 to the offended party Apolonio Ravina, and awarded costs.On November 8, 1957, in the afternoon, Apolonio Ravina and his helper came to the Gabu river bank, Laoag, Ilocos Norte, to load fish. A dispute arose between Ravina and local barrio lieutenant Agustin Raquinio over who should transport the fish; Agustin refused Ravina’s claim to preference. As Ravina turned away, defendant Juan Raquinio—acting as helper to Gaspar Retutal—stabbed Ravina in the abdomen with a small bolo. Ravina ran about 25 meters, collapsed, and was rescued when Agustin restrained Juan and seized the bolo. Medical testimony by Dr. Maximiano L. Agbayani showed a penetrating abdominal wound that punctured the liver and would have been fatal absent timely treatment; Ravina was hospitalized and incapacitated until March 1958.
Defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court; his notice of appeal expressly stated that a question of law was involved and prayed that the record be elevated here. In his brief he disputed factual findings, asserting lack of intent to kill. The trial court record, conviction, and sentence were thus brought to the Court under a direct appeal on questions of law. The Supreme Court considered whether the appea...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does a direct appeal to the Supreme Court taken on a question of law preclude review of the trial court’s factual findings?
- Do the facts and evidence support a conviction for frustrated homicide (i.e., was there intent to kill)?
- May evidence of treachery be proved and considered as an aggravating circumstance although treachery was not alleged in the information, and if so, does its proof convert ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)