G.R. No.

199579 December 10, 2012

RAMON JOSUE y GONZALES, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF !E P!"L"PP"NES, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
RE#ES, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed ! petitioner Ra"on #osue y $on%ales
&#osue' to assail the (e)ision
*
dated #une +,, -,** and Resolution
-
dated (e)e"er *, -,** of the
Court of .ppeals &C.' in C./$.R. CR No. ++*0,.
The petitioner was )har1ed with the )ri"e of frustrated ho"i)ide efore the Re1ional Trial Court
&RTC' of 2anila, via an infor"ation that reads3
That on or aout 2a! *, -,,4, in the Cit! of 2anila, Philippines, the said a))used, with intent to 5ill,
did then and there willfull!, unlawfull! and feloniousl!, atta)5, assault and use personal violen)e upon
the person of .R2.N(O 2.C.RIO ! PINE(. a.5.a. BO6ET OR., ! then and there shootin1 the
said .r"ando 2a)ario ! Pineda a.5.a. Bo!et Ora several ti"es with a )al. 47 pistol hittin1 hi" on the
different parts of his od!, thus perfor"in1 all the a)ts of e8e)ution whi)h should have produ)ed the
)ri"e of 9o"i)ide, as a )onse:uen)e, ut nevertheless did not produ)e it ! reason of )auses
independent of his will, that is, ! the ti"el! and ale "edi)al attendan)e rendered to the said
.R2.N(O 2.C.RIO ! PINE(. a.5.a. BO6ET OR. whi)h prevented his death thereafter.
Contrar! to law.
+
The )ase was do)5eted as Cri". Case No. ,7/-+;-<< and raffled to Bran)h 4, of the RTC. Upon
arrai1n"ent, the petitioner entered a plea of =not 1uilt!=. .fter pre/trial, trial on the "erits ensued.
The witnesses for the prose)ution were3 &*' vi)ti" .r"ando 2a)ario y Pineda &2a)ario'> &-' (r.
Casi"iro Tion1son, #r. &(r. Tion1son', Chief Sur1i)al Resident of Chinese $eneral 9ospital> &+' (r.
Edith Calalan1 &(r. Calalan1', a radiolo1ist> &4' .riel ?illanueva, an e!ewitness to the )ri"e> and &7'
#osiel!n 2a)ario, wife of the vi)ti". The prose)ution presented the followin1 a))ount3
On 2a! *, -,,4, at around **3*7 in the evenin1, 2a)ario, a barangay tanod, was u!in1 "edi)ine
fro" a store near the petitioner@s residen)e in Barrio Orero, Tondo, 2anila when he saw the petitioner
1oin1 towards hi", while shoutin1 to as5 hi" wh! he had painted the petitioner@s vehi)le. 2a)ario
denied the petitioner@s a))usation, ut petitioner still pointed and shot his 1un at 2a)ario. The 1unshots
fired ! the petitioner hit 2a)ario@s elow and fin1ers. .s the unar"ed 2a)ario tried to flee fro" his
assailant, the petitioner still fired his 1un at hi", )ausin1 hi" to sustain a 1unshot wound at his a)5.
2a)ario was then rushed to the Chinese $eneral 9ospital for "edi)al treat"ent.
(r. Tion1son )onfir"ed that 2a)ario sustained three &+' 1unshot wounds3 &*' one on his ri1ht hand, &-'
one on his left elow, and &+' one indi)atin1 a ullet@s entr! point at the posterior of the )hest, e8itin1 at
the anterior line. (r. Calalan1 too5 note of the tin! "etalli) forei1n odies found in 2a)ario@s 8/ra!
results, whi)h )onfir"ed that the wounds were )aused ! 1unshots. Aurther, she said that the vi)ti"@s
inBuries were fatal, if not "edi)all! attended to. 2a)ario in)urred "edi)al e8penses for his treat"ents.
Aor his defense, the petitioner de)lared to have "erel! a)ted in self/defense. 9e )lai"ed that on the
evenin1 of 2a! *, -,,4, he, to1ether with his son Rafael, was wat)hin1 a television pro1ra" when
the! heard a sound indi)atin1 that the hood of his Beepne! was ein1 opened. 9e then went to the pla)e
where his Beepne! was par5ed, ar"ed with a .47 )alier pistol tu)5ed to his waist. There he saw
2a)ario, to1ether with Eduardo 2atias and Ri)hard .5on1, in the a)t of re"ovin1 the lo)5s of his
vehi)le@s atter!. Chen the petitioner sou1ht the attention of 2a)ario@s 1roup, 2a)ario pointed his .+0
)alier 1un at the petitioner and pulled its tri11er, ut the 1un Ba""ed and failed to fire. The petitioner
then 1ot his 1un and used it to fire at 2a)ario, who was hit in the upper ar". 2a)ario a1ain tried to use
his 1un, ut it still Ba""ed then fell on the 1round. .s 2a)ario rea)hed down for the 1un, the petitioner
fired at hi" on)e "ore, hittin1 hi" at the a)5. Chen 2a)ario still tried to fire his 1un, the petitioner
fired at hi" for the third ti"e, hittin1 his hand and )ausin1 2a)ario to drop his 1un. The petitioner 1ot
2a)ario@s 1un and 5ept it in his residen)e.
The petitioner@s son, Rafael #osue, testified in )ourt to )orroorate his father@s testi"on!.
SPO4 .8elito Pal"ero &SPO4 Pal"ero' also testified for the defense, de)larin1 that on 2a! -;, -,,4,
he re)eived fro" #osue a .+0 )alier revolver that alle1edl! elon1ed to 2a)ario.
On O)toer --, -,,<, the RTC rendered its (e)ision
4
findin1 the petitioner 1uilt! e!ond reasonale
dout of the )ri"e of frustrated ho"i)ide. It 1ave full )redit to the testi"on! of the prose)ution
witnesses, further notin1 that the defense had failed to prove that the .+0 )alier revolver that was
turned over to SPO4 Pal"ero a)tuall! elon1ed to 2a)ario. The dispositive portion of the RTC
(e)ision reads3
$!EREFORE, a))used RAMON JOSUE y GONZALES is found 1uilt! e!ond reasonale dout
of Arustrated 9o"i)ide without an! a11ravatin1 or "iti1atin1 )ir)u"stan)es to var! the penalt!
i"posale. .ppl!in1 the Indeter"inate Senten)e Law, he is here! senten)ed to suffer an indeter"inate
penalt! of si8 &;' "onths and one &*' da! of prision correccional as "ini"u", to ei1ht &0' !ears and
one &*' da! of prision mayor as "a8i"u".
.))used Ra"on #osue ! $on%ales is here! ordered to inde"nif! the vi)ti", .r"ando 2a)ario !
Pineda, the su" of DPE+-,-*4.-7 for hospitali%ation and "edi)ine e8penses as a)tual da"a1es.
The a))used@s ail is dee"ed )an)elled. Bonds"an is ordered to surrender the a))used to this Court for
e8e)ution of the final Bud1"ent.
SO OR(ERE(.
7
Unsatisfied, the petitioner appealed fro" the RTC@s de)ision to the C., whi)h affir"ed the rulin1s of
the RTC and thus, dis"issed the appeal.
9en)e, the present petition. The petitioner assails the C.@s dis"issal of the appeal, ar1uin1 that the
prose)ution had failed to overthrow the )onstitutional presu"ption of inno)en)e in his favor.
Ce den! the petition.
.t the outset, we e"phasi%e that sin)e the petitioner see5s this Court@s review of his )ase throu1h a
petition for review under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, onl! :uestions of law shall e addressed ! the
Court, arrin1 an! :uestion that pertains to fa)tual issues on the )ri"e@s )o""ission. The 1eneral rule
is that :uestions of fa)t are not reviewale in petitions for review under Rule 47, suBe)t onl! to )ertain
e8)eptions as when the trial )ourt@s Bud1"ent is not supported ! suffi)ient eviden)e or is pre"ised on
a "isapprehension of fa)ts.
;
Upon review, the Court has deter"ined that the present )ase does not fall under an! of the e8)eptions.
In resolvin1 the present petition, we then defer to the fa)tual findin1s "ade ! the trial )ourt, as
affir"ed ! the C. when the )ase was rou1ht efore it on appeal. The Court has, after all, )onsistentl!
ruled that the tas5 of assi1nin1 values to the testi"onies of witnesses and wei1hin1 their )rediilit! is
est left to the trial )ourt whi)h for"s first/hand i"pressions as witnesses testif! efore it. Aa)tual
findin1s of the trial )ourt as re1ards its assess"ent of the witnesses@ )rediilit! are entitled to 1reat
wei1ht and respe)t ! this Court, parti)ularl! when affir"ed ! the C., and will not e distured
asent an! showin1 that the trial )ourt overloo5ed )ertain fa)ts and )ir)u"stan)es whi)h )ould
sustantiall! affe)t the out)o"e of the )ase.
F
.s a1ainst the fore1oin1 para"eters, the Court finds, and so holds, that oth the trial and appellate
)ourts have )orre)tl! ruled on the petitioner@s )ulpailit! for the )ri"e of frustrated ho"i)ide, whi)h
has the followin1 for its ele"ents3
&*' the a))used intended to 5ill his vi)ti", as "anifested ! his use of a deadl! weapon in his
assault>
&-' the vi)ti" sustained fatal or "ortal woundGs ut did not die e)ause of ti"el! "edi)al
assistan)e> and
&+' none of the :ualif!in1 )ir)u"stan)e for "urder under .rti)le -40 of the Revised Penal Code
is present.
These ele"ents were dul! estalished durin1 the trial.
The trial )ourt@s fa)tual findin1s, when ta5en )olle)tivel!, )learl! prove the e8isten)e of the )ri"e@s
first and se)ond ele"ents, pertainin1 to the petitioner@s intent to 5ill and his infli)tion of fatal wound
upon the vi)ti". Eviden)e to prove intent to 5ill in )ri"es a1ainst persons "a! )onsist, a"on1 other
thin1s, of the "eans used ! the "alefa)tors> the )ondu)t of the "alefa)tors efore, at the ti"e of, or
i""ediatel! after the 5illin1 of the vi)ti"> and the nature, lo)ation and nu"er of wounds sustained !
the vi)ti".
0
Si1nifi)antl!, a"on1 the witnesses presented ! the prose)ution was ?illanueva, who,
while ein1 a friend of the petitioner, had testified a1ainst the petitioner as an e!ewitness and
spe)ifi)all! identified the petitioner as the assailant that )aused the wounds sustained ! the vi)ti"
2a)ario. Even the petitioner )ites in the petition he filed with this Court the prose)ution@s )lai" that at
the ti"e he fired the first 1unshot, he was shoutin1, =Papatayin kita! (I will kill you!)=
<
The do)tors
who attended to the vi)ti"@s inBuries also affir"ed efore the trial )ourt that 2a)ario had sustained
1unshot wounds, and that the inBuries )aused there! were fatal if not 1iven "edi)al attention. The trial
)ourt then held3
Cei1hin1 the eviden)e thus proffered, this Court elieves the prose)ution@s version.
8 8 8 8
The Court 1ives )reden)e to the testi"onies of the witnesses presented ! the prose)ution as it did not
find an! fa)t or )ir)u"stan)e in the shootin1 in)ident to show that said witnesses had falsel! testified
or that the! were a)tuated ! ill/"otive.
8 8 8 8
8 8 8 &.'s a result of ein1 shot three &+' ti"es with a .47 )alier 1un, )o"plainant sustained "ortal
wounds whi)h without "edi)al assistan)e, )o"plainant )ould have died therefro". (r. Casi"iro
Tion1son, #r., the )hief sur1i)al resident who attended the )o"plainant and pres)ried his "edi)ines,
testified that the vi)ti", .r"ando 2a)ario, sustained three &+' 1unshot wounds lo)ated in the left
elow, ri1ht hand and another ullet enterin1 his posterior )hest e8itin1 in front of )o"plainant@s )hest.
These findin1s were also )ontained in the 8/ra! )onsultation reports testified to ! (r. Edith Calalan1
as )orrooratin1 witness.
*,
&Citations o"itted'
Chat is also noteworth! is that the petitioner invo5ed self/defense, after he had ad"itted that he )aused
the vi)ti"@s wounds when he shot the latter several ti"es usin1 a deadl! weapon, i.e., the .47 )alier
pistol that he )arried with hi" to the situs of the )ri"e. In People v. Mondigo,
**
we e8plained3
%y &'(o)&'* +e,-./e-e'+e, 011e,,0'2 0/m&22e/ comm&22&'* 23e -e,o'&e+ -or 43&c3 3e 40+ c30r*e/
0,be&2 5'/er c&rc5m+20'ce+ 43&c3, &- 1ro(e', 4o5,/ 65+2&-y 3&+ comm&++&o' o- 23e cr&me+. Thus, 23e
b5r/e' o- 1roo- &+ +3&-2e/ 2o 011e,,0'2 43o m5+2 +3o4, e!ond reasonale dout, that the 5illin1 of
(a"aso and woundin1 of .nthon! were attended ! the followin1 )ir)u"stan)es3 718 5',04-5,
0**re++&o' o' 23e 10r2 o- 23e (&c2&m+9 728 re0+o'0b,e 'ece++&2y o- 23e me0'+ em1,oye/ 2o 1re(e'2
or re1e, &29 0'/ 7:8 ,0c) o- +5--&c&e'2 1ro(oc02&o' o' 23e 10r2 o- 23e 1er+o' /e-e'/&'* 3&m+e,-.
*-
&Citations o"itted and e"phasis ours'
In order to e e8onerated fro" the )har1e, the petitioner then assu"ed the urden of provin1, e!ond
reasonale dout, that he "erel! a)ted in self/defense. Upon review, we a1ree with the RTC and the
C. that the petitioner failed in this re1ard.
Chile the three ele"ents :uoted aove "ust )on)ur, self/defense relies, first and fore"ost, on proof of
unlawful a11ression on the part of the vi)ti". If no unlawful a11ression is proved, then no self/defense
"a! e su))essfull! pleaded.
*+
=Unlawful a11ression= here presupposes an a)tual, sudden, and
une8pe)ted atta)5, or i""inent dan1er of the atta)5, fro" the vi)ti".
*4
In the present )ase, parti)ularl! si1nifi)ant to this ele"ent of =unlawful a11ression= is the trial )ourt@s
findin1 that 2a)ario was unar"ed at the ti"e of the shootin1, while the petitioner then )arried with
hi" a .47 )alier pistol. .))ordin1 to prose)ution witness ?illanueva, it was even the petitioner who
)onfronted the vi)ti", who was then onl! u!in1 "edi)ine fro" a sari-sari store. $rantin1 that the
vi)ti" tried to steal the petitioner@s )ar atter!, su)h did not e:uate to a dan1er in his life or personal
safet!. .t one point durin1 the fi1ht, 2a)ario even tried to run awa! fro" his assailant, !et the
petitioner )ontinued to )hase the vi)ti" and, usin1 his .47 )alier pistol, fired at hi" and )aused the
"ortal wound on his )hest. Contrar! to the petitioner@s defense, there then appeared to e no =real
dan1er to his life or personal safet!,=
*7
for no unlawful a11ression, whi)h would have otherwise
Bustified hi" in infli)tin1 the 1unshot wounds for his defense, e"anated fro" 2a)ario@s end.
H
The weapon used and the nu"er of 1unshots fired ! the petitioner, in relation to the nature and
lo)ation of the vi)ti"@s wounds, further ne1ate the )lai" of self/defense. Aor a )lai" of self/defense to
prosper, the "eans e"plo!ed ! the person )lai"in1 the defense "ust e )o""ensurate to the nature
and e8tent of the atta)5 sou1ht to e averted, and "ust e rationall! ne)essar! to prevent or repel an
unlawful a11ression.
*;
Considerin1 the petitioner@s use of a deadl! weapon when his vi)ti" was
unar"ed, and his )lear intention to )ause a fatal wound ! still firin1 his 1un at the vi)ti" who had
atte"pted to flee after alread! sustainin1 two 1unshot wounds, it is evident that the petitioner did not
a)t "erel! in self/defense, ut was an a11ressor who a)tuall! intended to 5ill his vi)ti".
$iven the fore1oin1, and in the asen)e of an! )ir)u"stan)e that would have :ualified the )ri"e to
"urder, we hold that the trial )ourt )o""itted no error in de)larin1 the petitioner 1uilt! e!ond
reasonale dout of the )ri"e of frustrated ho"i)ide. .ppl!in1 the rules provided ! the Indeter"inate
Senten)e Law, the trial )ourt )orre)tl! i"posed for su)h offense an indeter"inate penalt! of si8 & ;'
"onths and one &*' da! of prision correccional as "ini"u", to ei1ht &0' !ears and one &*' da! of
prision mayor as "a8i"u". The award of a)tual da"a1es is also sustained. 9owever, we hold that in
line with prevailin1 Burispruden)e,
*F
the vi)ti" is entitled to an award of "oral da"a1es in the a"ount
of P*,,,,,.,,.
$!EREFORE, the petition is DEN"ED. The (e)ision dated #une +,, -,** and Resolution dated
(e)e"er *, -,** ofthe Court of .ppeals in C./$.R. CR No. ++*0, are AFF"RMED with
MOD"F";A"ON in that the petitioner Ra"on #osue y $on%ales is also ordered to pa! the offended
part! the a"ount of P*,,,,,.,, as "oral da"a1es.
SO OR(ERE(.