Case Summary (G.R. No. 21384)
Factual Background
On June 27, 1993, Elpidio Malicse, Sr. arrived at his sister Isabelita’s house in Pandacan, Manila, where a verbal confrontation ensued with family members. After a preliminary scuffle in which Elpidio slapped Isabelita, he left but later returned to seek reconciliation. Upon returning he encountered family members including Salvador, Titus, and Gary Fantastico. A physical altercation followed when Salvador struck Elpidio with a rattan stick; Elpidio and Salvador grappled for the stick and Titus sprayed something into Elpidio’s face. Elpidio bit Salvador’s head and attempted to leave, whereupon Gary struck him with a tomahawk axe and others, including Rolando Villanueva (referred to as Rolly), joined in attacking Elpidio. Rolly struck Elpidio from behind with a lead pipe, causing him to fall. While on the ground several assailants beat Elpidio, who covered his face with his arm and pleaded for them to stop. The assault ceased only when a bystander fainted, at which point neighbors transported Elpidio to the Philippine General Hospital.
Criminal Information and Pleas
The Information charged the accused with Attempted Murder alleging that on June 27, 1993, in Manila, the accused, "conspiring and confederating together and helping one another," with intent to kill and with treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, commenced the commission of murder by striking Elpidio with a rattan, axe, pipe and piece of wood, but did not complete execution because the injuries were not necessarily mortal. All accused pleaded not guilty.
Trial Court Proceedings and Findings
The trial proceeded with testimony from the victim Elpidio, medical witnesses, and others. The trial court acquitted Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron, and Tommy Ballesteros but found Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder. The RTC concluded that the prosecution established that Gary struck the victim with a tomahawk causing an open fracture of one leg, Rolly struck the victim with a lead pipe to the head, and Salvador inflicted multiple blows, while the victim was unarmed and inebriated, thus constituting abuse of superior strength. The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day to ten years and ordered payment of actual damages of P17,300.00 and moral damages of P10,000.00.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in a Decision dated August 31, 2009, affirmed the RTC decision and denied petitioners’ appeal, and its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was reflected in a Resolution dated January 7, 2010. The CA sustained the trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility and the factual findings that supported conviction.
Petitioners’ Contentions in the Petition for Review
In their Rule 45 petition, petitioners argued principally that the courts below erred in fact-finding and law application. They contended that the Information failed to allege all elements of Attempted Murder, that there was no proof of treachery or other qualifying circumstance, that mitigating circumstances were overlooked, that factual findings contain manifest mistakes, that the conviction rested on weak prosecution evidence and uncorroborated, self-serving testimony of the victim, and that reversible errors injuriously affected their substantial rights.
Threshold Procedural Consideration by the Supreme Court
The Court observed that appeals under Rule 45 must raise questions of law and noted that petitioners’ assignments largely concerned questions of fact. The Court held that many issues raised were factual in nature and therefore, in principle, inappropriate for a certiorari appeal; nevertheless, the Court proceeded to give scant consideration to certain arguments because the petition failed to comply strictly with Rule 45’s requirement to raise legal questions only.
Sufficiency of the Information
The Court examined the Information and held that it sufficiently alleged the elements of an attempted felony under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines attempt. The Court explained the essential elements of an attempted felony and found that the Information’s allegation that the accused commenced the commission of murder, did not perform all acts of execution, and that non-completion was for causes other than spontaneous desistance adequately stated the offense. The Court further noted that petitioners could no longer challenge the sufficiency of the Information because they failed to move to quash before pleading in accord with Section 9, Rule 117.
Intent to Kill and Evidentiary Considerations
Addressing petitioners’ claim that the phrase "not necessarily mortal" negated intent to kill, the Court reiterated that intent to kill is a state of mind to be inferred from external acts and circumstances. The Court cited Rivera v. People and related authorities for the factors used to determine intent to kill, such as the means used, location and number of wounds, conduct of assailants, and surrounding circumstances. The Court found that the prosecution proved these factors at trial through the victim’s positive identification of the assailants and the medico-legal evidence, and it emphasized the rule that positive identification by a prosecution witness is entitled to greater weight than a bare denial by the accused as held in People v. Alvarado and related cases.
Corroboration by Medical Evidence
The Court relied on testimony of Dr. Edgar Michael Eufemio of the Philippine General Hospital who documented bilateral leg fractures, one closed fracture consistent with blunt trauma and an open fracture compatible with a hack or axe. The Court held that the medico-legal findings corroborated Elpidio’s account that he sustained severe leg and head injuries inflicted by the named assailants and supported the conclusion of an attempt to kill.
Treachery, Abuse of Superior Strength, and Aggravating Circumstances
The Court analyzed treachery and abuse of superior strength. It observed that treachery requires a deliberate or premeditated employment of means that afford no opportunity of defense and that in the present case the episode was spontaneous such that the element of conscious pre-adoption for treachery was lacking for most assailants. The Court, however, agreed with the RTC that abuse of superior strength existed because the victim was unarmed and inebriated while several assailants were armed with rattan sticks, a tomahawk, and a lead pipe, and the attackers used force disproportionate to the victim’s defensive capacity. The Court clarified that abuse of superior strength requires evidence that assailants purposely sought or deliberately used the advantage and that the facts established such disparity and use of excessive force.
Sen
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 21384)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva were the petitioners who were convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Manila.
- Elpidio Malicse, Sr. was the complainant and principal prosecution witness who sustained multiple injuries and identified the petitioners as his assailants.
- People of the Philippines prosecuted the case for attempted murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The petitioners appealed the RTC conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction, and then filed a petition for review under Rule 45, which this Court denied with modification of the penalty.
Key Factual Allegations
- Elpidio confronted family members at his sister Isabelita's house after hearing insults from her son, and an altercation ensued when he returned seeking reconciliation.
- Salvador Iguiron struck Elpidio with a rattan stick as Elpidio entered the house, and a struggle for the rattan stick occurred.
- Titus sprayed a substance on Elpidio's face while Gary Fantastico struck Elpidio with a tomahawk axe and later with the tomahawk on his leg.
- Rolando Villanueva allegedly struck Elpidio on the back of the head with a lead pipe, and several persons, including Salvador, continued to beat Elpidio while he pleaded for mercy.
- Elpidio sustained bilateral leg fractures, multiple lacerations, and required hospitalization and prolonged immobilization as confirmed by hospital records and a treating orthopedist.
Information and Charges
- The Information charged the accused with attempted murder for commencing the commission of murder by overt acts and not completing the killing for causes other than spontaneous desistance, and it included the phrase "not necessarily mortal."
- The Information identified the means used, the overt acts, the name of the offended party, and the approximate time and place of the offense in compliance with Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- The Court noted that the petitioners waived any objection to the sufficiency of the Information by failing to file or include grounds in a motion to quash under Sec. 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
Procedural History
- The trial court rendered its Decision dated March 31, 2008, acquitting some co-accused and convicting Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva of attempted murder.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in a Decision dated August 31, 2009 and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated January 7, 2010.
- The petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition with this Court dated January 20, 2010, contesting factual findings and claiming legal infirmities in the Information and in the trial court's consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of attempted murder despite the inclusion of the phrase "not necessarily mortal."
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the assailants and the requisite intent to kill.
- Whether treachery or any other qualifying circumstance existed.
- Whether abuse of superior strength was present as an aggravating circumstance.
- Whether the penalty imposed by the RTC conformed to the legal standards for attempted felonies under Article 51 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Contentions of Petitioners
- Petitioners contended that the courts below erred in drawing conclusions of fact and that the Information failed to allege all elements of attempted murder.
- Petitioners asserted that treachery and other qualifying circumstances were absent and that mitigating circumstances were not properly considered.
- Petitioners argued that their conviction rested on weak and uncorroborated evidence and on the self-serving testimony of the complainant.
Trial Court Findings
- The trial court found Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on Elpidio's positive identification and the corrobor