G.R. No. 197645 - Adlawan vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197645)

Charges and Procedural Posture

Petitioner was charged by two informations with Frustrated Murder and Attempted Robbery (filed 5 March 2004), pleaded not guilty at arraignment (25 March 2004), and underwent trial. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Cebu City, rendered a joint judgment (17 August 2006) acquitting petitioner of attempted robbery and convicting him of frustrated homicide. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modification (15 September 2010) and denied reconsideration and a subsequent joint motion to dismiss based on the private complainant’s affidavit of recantation (15 June 2011). Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court raising primarily: (1) alleged grave failure of appellate review by the CA; and (2) alleged error in disregarding the private complainant’s affidavit of recantation/desistance.

Prosecution’s Evidence at Trial

The prosecution established the following through testimony, medical documentation, and photographs: petitioner confronted Georgia after she returned home, an altercation ensued, petitioner repeatedly hacked Georgia with a long-bladed instrument (referred to as a katana), Georgia sustained multiple deep lacerations on the neck, scalp, back, abdomen and extremities, and she sought immediate medical attention at a nearby hospital and was transferred to Perpetual Succour Hospital. Dr. Kangleon’s medical certificate and testimony described multiple sutured lacerations, including a 15 cm penetrating laceration on the left lateral neck, and opined that the neck wound could have been fatal absent timely intervention. Photographs of the wounds were identified and admitted through a witness. An eyewitness (Fred) corroborated Georgia’s account that petitioner chased and hacked her. The prosecution also presented the secretary’s testimony confirming a P100,000 withdrawal for Alfonso’s hospital bills, providing context to the confrontation. Investigating police officers testified regarding the investigation; one officer admitted that weapons seized from petitioner’s room were taken without a search warrant or petitioner’s consent.

Defense Version and Evidence

Petitioner did not testify. The defense called Cornelio, the long-time cook, who denied seeing petitioner hack Georgia and recounted an account where Georgia slipped and fell while attempting to board the multicab, sustaining injuries in the fall; Cornelio said he pulled petitioner away and instructed him to go inside the house. Cornelio denied observing any weapon or seeing petitioner commit the hacking. The defense thus presented an alternative, accidental-injury narrative and sought to undermine the prosecution’s identification and causation theory.

RTC Findings and Rationale

The RTC acquitted petitioner of attempted robbery, concluding there was no overt act to consummate or attempt robbery beyond asking “where is the money?” The RTC convicted petitioner of frustrated homicide, finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner repeatedly hacked Georgia with intent to kill, and that the acts performed satisfied the execution necessary for homicide but that timely medical intervention prevented death. The RTC applied aggravating circumstances described as abuse of superior strength and insult/disregard of respect due to the offended party (stepmother, age, sex), imposed an indeterminate penalty range (after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law), and ordered moral indemnity and medical expenses.

Court of Appeals Decision and Modification

The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction for frustrated homicide but modified the penalty because the trial court applied ordinary aggravating circumstances that had not been alleged in the information; the CA held that such aggravating circumstances could not properly be considered at sentencing where not charged. The CA therefore reduced the maximum term of the sentence and otherwise affirmed the RTC’s factual findings and conviction. The CA later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and a joint motion to dismiss based on the private complainant’s affidavit of recantation and desistance, stating that an affidavit of desistance alone is insufficient to dismiss a case that has already been instituted.

Affidavit of Recantation and Counsel’s Subsequent Motions

After appellate conviction, Georgia executed (10 December 2010) an affidavit of recantation and desistance in which she claimed she fabricated allegations and offered an alternative explanation that her injuries resulted from accidentally smashing into a glass door and slipping when boarding the multicab. Petitioner and Georgia jointly moved to dismiss and to admit the affidavit of recantation; the CA denied those motions, and the denial was among the rulings challenged in the Supreme Court petition.

Issues Raised in the Petition to the Supreme Court

Petitioner principally urged: (1) that the CA committed grave failure of appellate review by not addressing issues raised in his appeal regarding lack of intent to kill, inadmissible weapon evidence, insufficiency or non-fatal character of injuries, and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony; and (2) that the CA gravely erred in disregarding the private complainant’s affidavit of recantation and desistance and in declining dismissal on that basis.

Supreme Court’s Governing Standard on Scope of Review

The Supreme Court applied Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, emphasizing that petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 are confined to questions of law and do not permit reexamination of factual findings unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court reiterated the distinction between questions of law (requests for legal interpretation on an undisputed set of facts) and questions of fact (disputes about the truth or probative weight of evidence and witness credibility). The Court found that most of petitioner’s assertions implicated factual determinations and credibility assessments, matters not ordinarily amenable to Rule 45 review.

Supreme Court Analysis — Factual Findings, Intent, and Evidentiary Weight

On the merits, and even assuming exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the CA’s factual determinations. The Court upheld the inference of intent to kill from the nature, number, and location of hack wounds, the conduct of pursuing the victim after she fled, the medical testimony identifying deep hack wounds that could have been fatal, the photographs corroborating grievous injuries, and the eyewitness identification. The Court ob

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197645)

Case Caption, Citation, and Procedural Posture

G.R. No. 197645; decision penned by Justice Martires and promulgated April 18, 2018; reported at 830 Phil. 88; Third Division.
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal and setting aside: (a) Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 15 September 2010 in CA-G.R. CR No. 00555; and (b) CA Resolution dated 15 June 2011 denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and a Joint Motion to Dismiss and to Admit Private Complainant’s Affidavit of Recantation and Desistance.
Procedural history includes: Informations filed 5 March 2004; arraignment and plea of not guilty on 25 March 2004; trial on the merits; RTC Joint Judgment dated 17 August 2006 (Criminal Case Nos. CBU-68828 and CBU-68829); appeal to the Court of Appeals; CA Decision of 15 September 2010 (affirmed with modification); petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed 7 October 2010; Affidavit of Recantation and Desistance executed by private complainant on 10 December 2010 and a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed 28 December 2010; CA Resolution denying reconsideration and joint motion dated 15 June 2011; present petition to the Supreme Court.

Parties and Relationship

Petitioner: Carlos Jay Adlawan (hereinafter “petitioner”).
Private complainant/offended party: Georgia R. Adlawan (hereinafter “Georgia”), stepmother of petitioner.
Victim and private complainant is the second wife of the late Alfonso V. Adlawan; petitioner is one of Alfonso’s five children from his first marriage.
Other relevant persons: Cornelio Selin (houseboy, also referred to in parts of the rollo as “Cornelio Celin”); Maria Reina Lastimosa (Georgia’s secretary); Fred John Dahay (multicab driver and eyewitness); investigating police officers (Police Senior Inspector Germano Mallari, Police Officer 3 Renato Masangkay, Police Inspector Carlos C. Reyes, Jr., Senior Police Officer 4 Ernesto Navales); attending physician Dr. Rogelio Kangleon; photographer Charlita Gloria.

Charges, Pleas, and Specific Criminal Allegations

Two Informations were filed on 5 March 2004 charging petitioner with: (1) Frustrated Murder and (2) Attempted Robbery. (Criminal Case Nos. CBU-68828 and CBU-68829.)
At arraignment on 25 March 2004, petitioner, with counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution ultimately secured conviction for Frustrated Homicide (the RTC’s conviction for frustrated homicide; CA affirmed conviction for frustrated homicide). Petitioner was acquitted by the RTC of Attempted Robbery.

Factual Narrative as Found in the Record

Family residence: All lived together at Brgy. Lipata, Minglanilla, Cebu — Alfonso, Georgia, an adopted daughter, and Alfonso’s five children including petitioner.
Georgia was engaged in a construction business; petitioner was unemployed and had legs operated on, braced with stainless steel.
On 18 February 2004, at about 5:30 p.m., Georgia arrived home, took dinner, then heard petitioner speaking with Cornelio in the backyard. Petitioner asked Cornelio loudly “unsa na?” (“what now?”).
Georgia proceeded to the backyard, encountered petitioner who went to his room, then returned and angrily demanded “asa ang kwarta?” (“where is the money?”).
Earlier that day Georgia had instructed her secretary, Maria Reina, to withdraw P100,000.00 from the Development Bank of the Philippines in Cebu City to pay Alfonso’s hospital bills; this withdrawal was corroborated by Maria Reina’s testimony.
According to Georgia’s testimony, petitioner then furiously said “mura kag kinsa!” (“as if you are somebody!”) and began hacking her with a katana (noted in the record as mistakenly identified as “samurai”), striking her left neck and abdomen while Georgia parried with her hands.
Georgia ran to the garage but petitioner pursued and continued to hack her, hitting her shoulders and back until she fell; Georgia summoned strength, kicked his leg, grabbed and squeezed his sex organ, causing petitioner to fall; Georgia then walked a few meters to Baking Medical Hospital and was later transferred to Perpetual Succour Hospital in Cebu City.
Cornelio’s account differed significantly: he testified he saw Georgia slip while about to board the multicab and denied seeing petitioner hack Georgia or carry a weapon; he stated petitioner was holding a cup of coffee earlier and that he pulled petitioner away after Georgia kicked petitioner’s leg and private part.
Eyewitness Fred testified he witnessed Georgia being chased and hacked by petitioner, corroborating Georgia’s version.

Physical and Medical Evidence Presented

Medical certificate prepared by Dr. Rogelio Kangleon (Exhibit “J”, Records, p. 100) documented multiple and grave injuries:
- laceration occipital on the scalp, 3 cm (sutured);
- penetrating laceration on left lateral neck, 15 cm (sutured) with surrounding contusion/hematoma;
- laceration on left scapular area, 8 cm (sutured) with contusion/hematoma;
- laceration on left ankle, 6 cm (sutured);
- multiple contusions/hematomas at right shoulder, right hand, left arm, left ear, left wrist and hand, left breast, both knees;
- superficial laceration with surrounding contusion/hematoma, 30 cm on anterior abdomen;
- superficial laceration, 12 cm left upper back.
Photographs of Georgia’s wounds (Exhibits “B” to “G”, Records, pp. 90–96) were identified through testimony of photographer Charlita Gloria.
Dr. Kangleon testified the injuries, by their appearance and nature, were consistent with hack wounds and that the hack wound on the left neck would likely have been fatal absent timely medical intervention.

Evidentiary and Chain-of-Custody Issues

Police Senior Inspector Germano Mallari admitted during cross-examination that the search of petitioner’s room and seizure of weapons found therein were conducted without a search warrant and without petitioner’s consent, rendering such seized weapon evidence inadmissible.
The CA and the Supreme Court acknowledged the inadmissibility of the katana allegedly offered in evidence, but held the non-presentation/identification of the weapon did not defeat the prosecution where the accused was positively identified and other evidence established the nature and number of wounds.

Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Rationale

RTC Joint Judgment (17 August 2006) acquitted petitioner of Attempted Robbery (Criminal Case No. CBU-68829) — reasoned that asking “where is the money?” without overt acts was insufficient to prove attempted robbery.
RTC convicted petitioner of Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. CBU-68828), finding beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner repeatedly hacked and mortally wounded Georgia and performed all acts of execution necessary for homicide; timely medical intervention resulted only in a frustrated offense.
RTC found existence of aggravatin