Case Summary (G.R. No. 198400)
Factual Background
The victim was Benigno Abella, the younger brother of Fe Abella y Perpetua. On the evening of September 6, 1998, at Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City, Benigno was at Alejandro Tayrus’s house when the petitioner arrived carrying two scythes, one in each hand. Benigno blocked the petitioner’s entry and the petitioner pointed the scythe in his left hand toward Benigno’s stomach and used the scythe in his right hand to hack Benigno’s neck once. Benigno fell and was immediately taken to J.R. Borja Memorial Hospital, where Dr. Roberto Ardiente recorded an 11-centimeter hacking wound on the left lateral aspect of the neck and a 4-centimeter incised wound on the dorsal aspect of the left hand. Benigno was confined from September 6, 1998 to September 23, 1998, and claimed more than P10,000.00 in hospitalization expenses but lost the receipts.
Procedural History at Trial
The petitioner was charged by Information with frustrated homicide under Article 249 in relation to Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code and remained at large until his arrest on October 7, 2002. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented the testimony of Benigno, Amelita Abella, Alejandro Tayrus, and Dr. Roberto Ardiente. The defense offered the petitioner’s testimony and those of Fernando Fernandez and Urbano Cabag, asserting denial and alibi by claiming residency in Buenavista, Agusan del Norte from September 2, 1998 to October 2002.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
The RTC found the petitioner guilty of frustrated homicide on July 13, 2006 and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty described in the judgment as Six (6) years and One (1) day to Eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum, to Ten (10) years and One (1) day to Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. The RTC awarded P10,000.00 as actual damages for medical expenses and P100,000.00 as consequential damages. The RTC rejected the alibi and denial defenses as insufficient and credited the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence showing the visible scar.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s factual findings but modified the penalty and damages in its October 26, 2010 Decision. The CA applied Article 50 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law to set the indeterminate penalty minimum at six months and one day to six years of prision correccional and the maximum at eight years and one day of prision mayor in its medium period. The CA deleted the RTC’s awards of P10,000.00 actual damages and P100,000.00 consequential damages for lack of proof and instead ordered P30,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as temperate damages.
Petitioner's Contentions Before the Supreme Court
In a petition for review under Rule 45, the petitioner argued that the courts a quo erred in finding homicidal intent and that the evidence established either accident or absence of intent to kill. The petitioner asserted that only a single blow was delivered and that he pursued Alejandro and Dionisio thereafter, which evidenced lack of intent to ensure Benigno’s death. He relied on the Court’s decision in Pentecostes, Jr. v. People to contend that a single nonvital wound negated homicidal intent. He further emphasized the absence of complications from the wounds and the relatively short hospital confinement as indicative of less serious injuries.
Government's Response
The Office of the Solicitor General argued for dismissal of the petition and maintained that the petitioner raised factual issues unreviewable under Rule 45. The OSG urged that the petitioner’s intent to kill was shown by the dangerous weapon used, the nature and location of the wounds, and the circumstances of the attack, and that the wounds could have caused death absent timely medical intervention.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The principal issue was whether the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the petitioner possessed the intent to kill when he hacked Benigno’s neck, thereby justifying conviction for frustrated homicide, and whether the courts erred in the assessment of civil liability and damages.
Standard of Review Applied by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a petition under Rule 45 ordinarily raises pure questions of law and that review of factual findings is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, such as a clear misapprehension of facts or failure to notice relevant facts that would warrant a different conclusion. The Court noted that the instant petition primarily presented factual questions about homicidal intent and the lethal quality of the wounds and thus fell within the doctrinal limitation on Rule 45 review.
Supreme Court's Analysis of Homicidal Intent
The Court reiterated the elements of homicide and of frustrated homicide, emphasizing that the crucial element for frustrated homicide is intent to kill, which must be proved clearly and convincingly. The Court explained that intent to kill is often inferred from the means used and the nature, location, and number of wounds. Applying those principles to the record, the Court found the petitioner’s attack with two scythes and the delivery of a single hacking blow to the neck produced an 11-centimeter gaping wound that could have caused death absent timely medical care. The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Pentecostes, Jr. as inapposite because that case involved a single gunshot to a nonvital part. The Court also rejected the contention that pursuit of another person after delivering the blow negated intent, observing that a fatal blow had already been delivered and that Benigno’s survival was due to medical intervention independent of the petit
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 198400)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- FE ABELLA Y PERPETUA was the petitioner convicted of frustrated homicide by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 39.
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES was the respondent in the criminal prosecution and in the subsequent appeals.
- The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in CA-G.R. CR No. 00336-MIN, affirmed the conviction with modifications by Decision dated October 26, 2010 and Resolution dated August 11, 2011.
- The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court contesting the factual findings and the presence of homicidal intent.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision with modifications as to damages.
Key Factual Allegations
- On September 6, 1998 at around 11:00 p.m., the victim, Benigno Abella, was attacked and hacked with a scythe while at or near Alejandro Tayrus's house in Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City.
- The petitioner allegedly carried two scythes, hacked the victim once on the left lateral aspect of the neck and inflicted an incised wound on the dorsal aspect of the left hand.
- The victim was immediately hospitalized from September 6, 1998 until discharge on September 23, 1998 and claimed more than P10,000.00 in medical expenses but lost the receipts.
- The prosecution presented testimony from Benigno Abella, his wife Amelita Abella, Alejandro Tayrus, and Dr. Roberto Ardiente, who described an 11-centimeter neck hacking wound and a 4-centimeter incised wound on the hand.
- The defense presented the petitioner and two witnesses who testified to an alibi and to sightings of the petitioner earlier that day, but the trial court found those defenses inconsistent and uncorroborated.
Trial Court Findings
- The Regional Trial Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner of frustrated homicide.
- The trial court found the defenses of denial and alibi weak and credited the prosecution witnesses as positive, categorical, and consistent.
- The trial court sentenced the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty aggregating prision mayor ranges and ordered payment of P10,000.00 for medical expenses and P100,000.00 as consequential damages.
- The trial court did not explicitly state the basis for the award of consequential damages.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the RTC and held that the prosecution sufficiently proved homicidal intent.
- The Court of Appeals found intent to kill from the use of two scythes, the direction of the blow to the victim's neck, the sudden and swift nature of the attack, and medical testimony that the wounds could have caused death without timely medical intervention.
- The Court of Appeals modified the sentence in accordance with Article 249 and Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, computing the indeterminate penalty with prision correccional as minimum and prision mayor medium as maximum.
- The Court of Appeals deleted the trial court's awards of actual and consequential damages for lack of competent proof and instead awarded P30,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as temperate damages.
Issue Presented
- The sole principal issue was whether the courts below erred in finding that the petitioner had the requisite intent to kill to sust