G.R. No. 183566 - People vs. Badriago

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183566)

Charges and Material Allegations in the Informations

In Criminal Case No. 4255, the information alleged that with deliberate intent and intent to kill, accused-appellant hacked Adrian with a long sharp bolo (sundang), inflicting serious wounds that would have produced death, but which did not result in homicide due to timely and able medical assistance.

In Criminal Case No. 4276, the information charged that with deliberate intent, treachery, and evident premeditation, accused-appellant stabbed and hacked Oliver Quinto with a bolo, inflicting multiple wounds, including stab wounds to the chest and skull-related injuries, which caused Oliver’s death.

Arraignment, Joinder of Trial, and Evidence Presented

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The parties later agreed to try the case jointly.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of Dr. Ma. Bella Profetana, Dr. Frederic Joseph Asanza, Adrian Quinto, and Victoriano Quinto. The defense presented accused-appellant’s testimony and that of Rodolfo Gabon.

Prosecution Evidence: The Attacks on Adrian and Oliver

Adrian testified that on the morning of September 13, 2002, he was tasked by his mother to deliver a letter to Berting Bello in Barangay Guindapunan. Adrian traveled by tricycle with Oliver. After completing the errand, they headed back to the town plaza. At Sitio Mombon in Carigara, Adrian was suddenly approached by accused-appellant and was hacked on his lumbar area with a sundang or long bolo.

Adrian stated that accused-appellant attempted a second attack, but Adrian managed to shield himself, resulting in a hack wound to his lower left arm. Adrian jumped off the tricycle in panic, and he pushed Oliver off the tricycle to allow Oliver to avoid danger while Adrian ran to call for help. Adrian lost consciousness and regained it at the Carigara District Hospital. He later learned that Oliver was also attacked and did not survive.

Dr. Asanza testified that Adrian sustained two potentially fatal wounds: the hack wound on the lumbar area and the hack wound on the left arm. He explained that Adrian could have died had he not been brought to the hospital. On cross-examination, he acknowledged possibilities of limited mobility despite the lumbar wound and that the sequence of blows might have been different depending on where Adrian was when struck.

On Oliver’s autopsy, Dr. Profetana testified that eight of the 11 wounds inflicted on Oliver were fatal. She identified hypovolemic shock as the cause of death and stated that survival was impossible because the wounds severed blood vessels, leading to hemorrhage.

Victoriano, the victims’ father, testified regarding expenses, including costs for a stainless bar placed on Adrian’s injured arm, Adrian’s hospitalization, and burial-related expenses for Oliver. He estimated potential total losses, though he admitted that some receipts were not retained.

Defense Evidence: Accused-Appellant’s Version and Theory

Accused-appellant denied killing Oliver. He testified that on the morning of the incident, he was on his pedicab looking for passengers. He claimed that Adrian and Oliver accosted him, with Adrian allegedly saying, “Now Boning, let us fight.” He attempted to speed away but alleged that the brothers chased him. He stated that when they bumped his pedicab, Adrian got out and approached with a knife approximately ten inches long. According to accused-appellant, he grabbed a bolo from his pedicab seat and struck Adrian, injuring his left hand. He further testified that when Adrian’s knife fell and Adrian bent to pick it up, accused-appellant hacked Adrian again, after which Adrian ran away. Accused-appellant claimed he then ran toward the municipal building to report that he had injured someone. He insisted he did not even see Oliver during the encounter.

On cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted he did not suffer any injury following the confrontation with Adrian. He reiterated that he did not know what happened to Oliver.

Rodolfo Gabon corroborated that he saw two pedicabs engaged in a chase on a national road with houses and shrubbery. Rodolfo observed that accused-appellant’s pedicab was bumped by Adrian’s pedicab and that the two fell. Rodolfo testified that Adrian called out to fight and drew a short bolo. He stated that Adrian tried to stab accused-appellant but missed, then Rodolfo saw accused-appellant hit Adrian’s left arm. Rodolfo added that he saw Adrian’s bolo fall and that accused-appellant struck him again. Rodolfo, however, admitted he did not see whether Adrian had a passenger on board his pedicab.

RTC Ruling: Conviction for Frustrated Murder and Murder

On July 29, 2004, the RTC rendered its Decision. With the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Frustrated Murder instead of Frustrated Homicide in Criminal Case No. 4255 and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. It also ordered accused-appellant to pay Adrian actual damages and exemplary damages.

For Criminal Case No. 4276, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Murder and sentenced him to the maximum penalty of death, and ordered civil indemnity and exemplary damages for Oliver’s heirs.

Appellate Proceedings: CA Partial Grant

Because the death penalty was imposed, the records were transmitted to the CA via resolution after automatic review. In his brief, accused-appellant asserted that the RTC erred in convicting him of frustrated murder because the arraignment allegedly informed him only of frustrated homicide.

The CA sustained this contention and ruled that the conviction for frustrated murder constituted a gross violation of the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. The CA rejected accused-appellant’s other arguments, including his claims that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It found that accused-appellant, who invoked self-defense, was the one who inflicted the wounds upon Adrian and Oliver. The CA held that the circumstantial evidence showed culpability and that accused-appellant’s weapon choice and the areas he hacked reflected an intention to kill. The CA further rejected the mitigating circumstances invoked by accused-appellant.

Under Republic Act No. 9346 (prohibiting the imposition of death), the CA reduced the penalty for murder to reclusion perpetua.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

On review, the Court limited the remaining issues to: first, whether the CA erred in convicting accused-appellant of Frustrated Homicide and Murder despite alleged lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt; and second, whether the CA erred in refusing to appreciate mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, incomplete self-defense, and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong.

Legal Standards on Frustrated Homicide

The Court reiterated that to convict for homicide, the prosecution must prove: (one) that a person was killed; (two) that the accused killed without justifying circumstance; (three) that the accused had intent to kill, which is presumed; and (four) that the killing lacked qualifying circumstances of murder, or of parricide or infanticide.

For a frustrated felony, the Court stressed the requisites: (one) the offender performs all acts of execution; (two) those acts would produce the felony as consequence; (three) the felony is not produced; and (four) the failure is due to causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Application to Adrian: Conviction for Frustrated Homicide

The Court held that the evidence showed accused-appellant performed all acts that necessarily would result in Adrian’s death. It found that the intention to kill could be presumed from the lethal hacking blows inflicted on Adrian. It likewise ruled that accused-appellant’s attack was not justified and that self-defense was not credited. The Court further found no qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide, or infanticide.

It concluded that the case fit frustrated homicide because Adrian survived only due to timely medical intervention, as shown by the testimony of his examining physician.

Treachery in the Murder Charge

Accused-appellant contended that treachery was not proven by clear and convincing evidence because Adrian allegedly parried the blow and even jumped off the pedicab, thus purportedly showing a chance to resist. The Court explained that the essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack that offers an unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. It held that treachery could still exist even with a frontal attack if it was sudden and unexpected and made it impossible for the victim to defend or retaliate.

The Court found from the records that Adrian was suddenly attacked with a bolo, and the most Adrian could do at that moment was to shield himself with his arm. It also noted a further blow to Adrian’s back, which indicated the vulnerability of Adrian’s position with his back turned to accused-appellant and without opportunity to flee. The Court stated that treachery may be appreciated even when a victim was warned of danger if the victim remained defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the coup de grace.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Through Circumstantial Evidence as to Oliver

Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution’s proof was insufficient because there were no independent eyewitnesses identifying him as Oliver’s killer and because Adrian could not identify accused-appellant as Oliver’s assailant. He also faulted the absence of the weapon allegedly used.

The Court held that circumstantial evidence may establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt when it shows more than one circumstance; the facts from which inferences are derived are proved; and the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It also ruled that the pres

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 183566)

The case came on automatic review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) convicting Bonifacio Badriago for Frustrated Homicide in Criminal Case No. 4255 and Murder in Criminal Case No. 4276.
The accused-appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under two separate Informations.
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The parties later agreed to try the case jointly, and the RTC proceeded to trial on both cases.
The accused-appellant was convicted by the RTC, but the CA later modified the judgment insofar as the conviction for frustrated murder was corrected to frustrated homicide.
The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the CA convictions, with an additional modification awarding further moral damages to Adrian.

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines acted as Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bonifacio Badriago acted as Accused-Appellant.
The CA rendered its judgment on appeal, and the Supreme Court reviewed the CA Decision on the basis of its finality and the statutory requirement triggered by the original death penalty imposition.
The Supreme Court noted that, in compliance with prior jurisprudential guidance, the records were transmitted from the RTC to the CA and then elevated for review.
The parties dispensed with supplemental briefs, and the accused-appellant re-pled his arguments already raised before the CA.
The Supreme Court framed the remaining controversies as (a) whether guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and (b) whether mitigating circumstances should be appreciated.

Key Factual Allegations

The RTC accused the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 4255 of attacking Adrian Quinto on September 13, 2002 in Carigara, Leyte, with a long sharp bolo (sundang), causing multiple hack wounds.
The RTC alleged that the accused-appellant performed all acts of execution that would have produced homicide, but death did not occur due to timely and able medical assistance.
The RTC accused the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 4276 of attacking Oliver Quinto on September 13, 2002 using the same bolo, inflicting numerous wounds that caused Oliver’s death.
The prosecution’s version began with Adrian’s testimony that on the morning of the incident he delivered a letter by tricycle and was returning with Oliver when they met the accused-appellant at Sitio Mombon.
Adrian testified that the accused-appellant suddenly hacked him on the lumbar area with the bolo, and Adrian sustained a hack wound on his lower left arm after a second attempt.
Adrian testified that he jumped off the tricycle in panic, pushed Oliver off to allow him to run for help, and then lost consciousness.
Adrian’s testimony established that Oliver was later attacked as well and did not survive.
The prosecution supported the narrative through medical testimony on the nature of Adrian’s injuries and through a post-mortem examination of Oliver.

Trial Evidence Summary

Dr. Frederic Joseph Asanza testified that Adrian suffered two injuries that could have been fatal: the hack wound on the lumbar area and the hack wound on the left arm.
Dr. Asanza explained that Adrian could have died without hospital intervention, though he also conceded that there was a possibility Adrian could still crawl or walk depending on the circumstances of the wound and its sequence.
Dr. Ma. Bella Profetana testified that her post-mortem examination of Oliver showed that eight of the eleven wounds were fatal.
Dr. Profetana identified Oliver’s cause of death as hypovolemic shock and stated that survival was impossible because the wounds severed blood vessels and caused hemorrhage.
Victoriano Quinto, the father of the victims, testified to family expenses for Adrian’s injured arm and hospitalization, and to expenses for Oliver’s coffin and wake, along with an estimated total of losses.
The defense consisted of testimony by the accused-appellant and by Rodolfo Gabon.

Defense Theory at Trial

The accused-appellant testified that on the morning of September 13, 2002 he was on his pedicab looking for passengers.
He claimed that he was accosted by Adrian and Oliver, who carried stones.
The accused-appellant testified that Adrian called for a fight, that Adrian chased him while Oliver stood on the cargo compartment, and that their pedicabs collided causing him to swerve.
The accused-appellant testified that when he looked back Adrian approached with a knife and he grabbed a bolo to strike at Adrian, injuring Adrian’s left hand.
The accused-appellant asserted that Adrian’s knife fell and that when Adrian bent to pick it up, the accused-appellant hacked again, after which Adrian ran away.
The accused-appellant testified that he ran to the municipal building to report to the police that he had injured someone.
The accused-appellant denied killing Oliver and claimed he did not even see Oliver during the confrontation with Adrian.
Rodolfo Gabon testified that he saw two pedicabs chase each other and that from about four arms’ length he saw Adrian draw a short bolo and attempt to stab the accused-appellant.
Rodolfo testified that the accused-appellant hit Adrian’s left arm with his bolo, after Adrian’s bolo fell to the ground.
Rodolfo also testified that he observed the accused-appellant hit Adrian again and that he did not see whether Adrian had a passenger in his pedicab.
On cross-examination, Rodolfo admitted he did not see if Adrian had a passenger and that the incident occurred along a national road with houses and shrubbery.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the CA erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court had to determine whether the CA erred in not appreciating mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, incomplete self-defense, and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong.
The Supreme Court treated the guilt question in relation to both Criminal Case No. 4255 and Criminal Case No. 4276.
The Supreme Court treated the mitigating circumstances question as independent of whether the convict