SECOND DIVISION
ADONIS ARADILLOS
AND ALBINO GALABO,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
135619
January 15, 2004
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS
AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For review is the decision
dated February 12, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17316,[1]
affirming the conviction of petitioners Adonis Aradillos and Albino
Galabo
of the crime of Frustrated Homicide, with modification as to the
penalty
and the award of actual and moral damages.
An Information was filed
before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 10) of Davao City, charging
petitioners
Aradillos and Galabo with the crime of Frustrated Murder, committed as
follows:
That on or about February
3, 1992, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, armed with an ax
and piece of wood, conspiring, confederating together and helping one
another,
with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior strength,
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and hacked with said ax
and struck with said piece of wood, one Gloria Alviola thereby
inflicting
upon the latter the following injuries, to wit:
COMPOUND FRACTURE, (R)
AND (L) FRONTAL AREA 2° TO HACKING WOUND GCS 15 RLS 1
which injuries would
cause the death of the said Gloria Alviola, thus performing all the
acts
of execution which should have produced the crime of Murder as a
consequence,
but, nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
his will, that is, by the timely arrival and intervention of
complainant’s
brother-in-laws and the able medical assistance rendered to the said
Gloria
Alviola which prevented her death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Petitioners pleaded
not guilty to the charge[3]
and thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.cralaw:red
The prosecution and
the defense differ in their versions of the incident.cralaw:red
The gist of the prosecution
evidence is as follows:
At around 5:45 in the
afternoon of February 3, 1992, Gloria rebuked herein petitioners
Aradillos
and Galabo when she saw them in the act of cutting the bamboo bridge
located
on the property of her husband. Thereupon, petitioners chased her and
they
caught up with her near the house. Galabo then hit her several times
with
a piece of wood and his carpentry bag causing her to fall down. While
Gloria
was staggering face down, Aradillos hacked her twice with a carpentry
ax,
hitting her on the right side of the head and on the forehead. She
asked
for help from the Visto family, her neighbors, who brought her to the
clinic
of Dr. Alvarez in Matina, Davao. After Dr. Alvarez gave her first aid
treatment,
Gloria was advised to go to Davao Medical Center where she was confined
in the ICU for four days.[4]
At the time Gloria reproached
petitioners, she was within her bamboo-fenced yard, about ten meters
away
from them. Her house is located five to six meters away from the place
where she was standing. Her children, Rosalito[5]
and Rodilyn, and her sister-in-law, Rosa, were also within the
premises.
Petitioners cut their way through her closed bamboo gate and they
overtook
her while she was running towards her house. After she was injured, her
children brought her to the Visto family’s house which is located 200
meters
away. Meanwhile, Rosa ran to the Alsa Masa detachment to report the
incident.
Gloria’s four brothers-in-law, namely: Roberto, Modesto, Efren and
Nilo,
and her sister-in-law, Miguela were also within the premises but were
not
able to help her because they were nervous.[6]
On the other hand, petitioners
invoke self-defense, contending that the victim’s injuries on the head
were the result of the struggle for the possession of the ax between
her
and petitioner Aradillos. Petitioners, who are both carpenters,
recounted
that on their way home from work in the afternoon of February 3, 1992,
they stopped by the wooden bridge where they usually pass because of an
uprooted "idyok" tree that obstructed their passage. Petitioner Galabo
started cutting off the roots of the tree with his carpentry ax. But
upon
seeing them, Gloria who had been drinking "tuba" with her
brothers-in-law,
shouted invectives at them and threw stones at Galabo. When Galabo was
hit on his left rib, he ran for cover at a nearby coconut tree.
Petitioner
Aradillos took over the cutting of the tree. Gloria continued throwing
stones. Then, she approached Aradillos and grabbed the ax from him.
While
the two grappled for its possession, Gloria’s brothers-in-law were
throwing
stones at Galabo. In the course of the struggle between Aradillos and
Gloria,
the ax hit the latter. Seeing that Gloria was injured, Aradillos ran
away,
followed by Galabo. Aradillos passed by his house, left the ax there,
then,
went directly to the purok leader, Benjamin Autida, to whom he
surrendered.[7]
The trial court believed
the prosecution’s account, finding that the nature of the injuries
sustained
by Gloria could not have been caused during the struggle between her
and
petitioner Aradillos. Thus, the trial court convicted petitioners of
the
crime of Frustrated Homicide and sentenced them, as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the
guilt of the two (2) accused, Adonis Aradillos and Albino Galabo,
proven
beyond reasonable doubt of Frustrated Homicide and finding in their
favor
the provisions of Art. 250 of the Revised Penal Code, they are hereby
sentenced
to an imprisonment of ONE (1) YEAR each and pay the costs.cralaw:red
For the civil liability,
they are ordered to pay jointly and severally, the sum of P10,000.00
for
medical expenses and moral damages, of the victim.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[8]
On appeal, in sustaining
the trial court’s findings, the Court of Appeals noted that it is
"unnatural
and contrary to ordinary human experience for a woman, alone and
unarmed,
to run towards the two male appellants and grapple for the possession
of
an axe."[9]
The appellate court modified the penalty imposed on petitioners and the
damages awarded in favor of the victim,[10]
as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment
of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
1) The accused appellants
are sentenced to suffer an imprisonment ranging from two (2) years,
four
(4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight
(8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum; and
2) They are ordered
to pay the victim jointly and severally, the sum of P1,664.00 for
medical
expenses as actual damages, and P6,000.00 as moral damages.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[11]
In their petition for
review on certiorari, petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals’
affirmance
of their conviction with modification is not in accordance with law,
the
applicable decisions of this Court and the evidence on record.cralaw:red
It is settled that an
appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review[12]
and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be
found
in the judgment appealed from, whether they are assigned as errors or
not.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the outset, the Court
notes that while the memoranda of the parties and their appeal briefs
focused
on petitioners’ claim of self-defense, their evidence is actually
rooted
on the testimony of petitioner Aradillos that the ax accidentally hit
Gloria
during the struggle for its possession between them, thus:
Q Before the wounding
incident happened, what were you doing?
A I was looking at Albino
Galabo who was cutting the roots of the "idyok".cralaw:red
Q Where was that "idyok"
located at that time while you were watching Albino Galabo cutting it?
A The "idyok" was along
the bridge where it was fallen and which Albino cut.cralaw:red
Q And while Galabo was
cutting the "idyok", what happened next?
A He was stoned by Gloria
Alviola.cralaw:red
Q What else transpired
aside from the stoning incident?
A She shouted: "Mga
baga mo ug nawong. Mga squatter mo. Mga gagmay ra ba mo ug lawas." (You
are shameless. You are squatters. you have small bodies.)
Q How did you come to
know that Gloria Alviola threw stones at Albino Galabo?
A Because I saw her.cralaw:red
Q Let us go back to
the stoning incident. You said Gloria threw stones at Galabo while
Galabo
was cutting the "idyok" and Gloria at the same time uttered those words
you just have quoted, what happened to Galabo, if any, in result of the
stoning of Gloria?
A Galabo was hit at
his right rib cage.cralaw:red
Q And what happened
to Galabo?
A He was in pain.cralaw:red
Q What else did he do,
if any?
A I got the axe which
Galabo used in cutting the "idyok" to continue cutting the said
"idyok",
but Gloria continuously threw stones to us and then she grabbed the axe
from my hands.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q I will further clarify,
Your Honor. How did it happen that Gloria, the one you said threw
stones
at Galabo was able to wrestle with you for the possession of the axe?
A She rushed at me.cralaw:red
Q After rushing at you,
what did Gloria do?
A She grappled with
me for the possession of the axe.cralaw:red
Q In relation to the
wooden bridge, in what particular spot or area were you grappling or
possession
of the axe?
A At the edge of the
bridge.cralaw:red
Q Can you demonstrate
to the Honorable Court how the grappling for possession of the axe
happened
between you and Gloria?
A (Witness demonstrated
that he placed his right hand at the lower portion of the handle of the
axe; that Gloria’s right hand was holding the middle portion; and that
his left hand was holding the upper portion; and that Gloria’s other
hand
was on top of his hand.)[14]
(emphasis supplied)
On cross-examination,
Aradillos further demonstrated how Gloria sustained her injuries:
Q Now, with that kind
of illustration, Mr. Aradillos, how did Gloria sustain the injuries
because
you said that it was in the course of grappoing (sic)? Will you please
demonstrate to the Court how the injuries of Gloria Alviola was
inflicted?
A (Witness makes a demonstration)
ASST. CITY PROS. CALIZO:
We would like to make
of record that in his earlier demonstration Gloria was holding the
middle
portion and the upper portion of the axe. Was that the position of the
axe during that time?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes. Sometimes it
swung like this - the blade sometimes faced me; sometimes it faced her.cralaw:red
Q How did she sustain
the wound?
A She was accidentally
injured because of the force of the grappling.cralaw:red
Q At that time you pushed
the axe, was that the position of your hands?
A No ma’am. Because
of the swinging, I was able to push it accidentally towards Gloria.[15]
(emphasis ours)
Accident and self-defense
are two incompatible defenses. Accident presupposes lack of intention,
while self-defense assumes voluntariness, but induced only by necessity.[16]
In view of the above-quoted
assertions of petitioner Aradillos before the trial court, the Court
adopts
a more liberal stance by disregarding the apparent conflict in the
defense
raised by petitioners in their pleadings. After all, court litigations
are primarily for the search for truth, and a liberal interpretation of
the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to
adduce
proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth.[17]
In People vs. Court
of Appeals,[18]
the Court ruled that when, during the trial of the case, an accused
claims
that the crime was the result of an accident, the burden of proving
self-defense
will not come into play, to wit:
… It is noteworthy that
during the trial, petitioner Tangan did not invoke self-defense but
claimed
that Generoso was accidentally shot. As such, the burden of proving
self-defense,
which normally would have belonged to Tangan, did not come into play.
Although
Tangan must prove his defense of accidental firing by clear and
convincing
evidence, the burden of proving the commission of the crime remained in
the prosecution.[19]
(emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, petitioners
need not discharge the burden of proving self-defense, although they
must
prove their defense of accidental infliction of injuries on the victim,
by clear and convincing evidence. On the prosecution remains the burden
of proving the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
It is not disputed that
Gloria sustained hacking injuries. The prosecution maintains that these
injuries were the result of intentional blows, while petitioners stand
by their claim that Gloria sustained the injuries while she and
Aradillos
were grappling for the possession of the ax.cralaw:red
Generally, the rule
is that an assessment made by the trial judge of the credibility of
witnesses
will not be disturbed on appeal. Having heard the testimony of the
witnesses
and observed their demeanor on the witness stand, the judge is in a
better
position to determine the issue of credibility.[20]
But when it is shown that some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance
which would affect the result of the case have been overlooked,
misunderstood
or misapplied, the Court will not hesitate to make its own evaluation
of
the evidence.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Records show that aside
from the testimony of the victim and petitioners, the evidence for both
the prosecution and the defense as to the facts and circumstances
surrounding
the commission of the crime is based substantially on the corroborating
testimonies of their respective relatives, who maintained the
respective
versions of the prosecution and the defense. Each family has its own ax
to grind against the other as they are embroiled in a land dispute.
Thus,
in order to arrive at a judicious conclusion, these circumstances
should
have been taken into consideration by the lower courts in the
assessment
of the respective probative weights of the evidence of the parties.cralaw:red
A review of the records
discloses that the prosecution’s evidence failed to support Gloria’s
account
on how she sustained the injuries on the head. In fact, her version
together
with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is replete with
incredible
details that necessarily cast serious doubts on the probative weight of
the prosecution evidence which the trial and appellate courts have
overlooked.cralaw:red
Gloria testified on
direct examination that she was inside her yard while petitioners were
at the bridge when the latter chased her, but they were able to catch
up
with her near her house. Her testimony was totally demolished by the
cross-examination
conducted by the prosecution. Gloria stated that she was inside her
yard
while petitioners were at the bridge, ten meters away from her.[22]
She likewise asserted that her house is located five to six meters away
from where she was standing.[23]
If her assertions were true, petitioners had to run ten meters towards
her while she had only five to six meters to reach her house. Given the
disparity between the distances that petitioners and Gloria had to run,
evidently, she had a good head start for her to reach her house before
petitioners could be near her.cralaw:red
In addition, Gloria
testified that petitioners had to destroy the bamboo gate in order to
get
inside the yard, thus giving her more time within which to reach her
house.
Yet, Gloria claims, petitioners were able to overtake her. Unless
Gloria
leisurely walked towards her house or that she had no intention of
taking
refuge in her house, it would have been physically impossible for
petitioners
to have caught up with her before she entered her house. As noted by
the
trial court, "you will not wait for someone to catch you before [you]
ran
(sic) away."[24]
If at all, Gloria should have already been in the safety of her house
by
the time petitioners would have negotiated the distance of ten meters,
not to mention the time that petitioners would have spent in destroying
the bamboo gate.cralaw:red
The prosecution also
claims that petitioner Galabo hit Gloria several times on the nape with
a carpentry bag and a piece of wood measuring two feet in length and
two
inches in diameter[25]
which caused her to fall face down.[26]
However, aside from the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, no other
evidence
was presented to support such claim. If their testimonies were true,
then
Gloria should have suffered injuries, or bruises at the very least, as
a result of the blows on her nape with a carpentry bag and a piece of
wood.
But interestingly, no medical evidence was presented to confirm that
Gloria
sustained even a scratch from said blows.cralaw:red
Such lack of evidence
renders incredible the prosecution’s accusation that Galabo inflicted
blows
on Gloria. Physical evidence is mute but an eloquent manifestation of
truth
and rates highly in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[27]
It enjoys a far more superior probative weight than corroborative
testimonies.[28]
In this case, the absence of physical injuries and medical findings
negate
Gloria’s claim that she was hit by petitioner Galabo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Gloria further testified
on direct examination that after sustaining injuries, she sought help
from
her neighbors, the Visto family, who brought her to the clinic of Dr.
Generoso
B. Alvarez. On cross-examination, Gloria stated that it was her
children,
Glodilito and Rodilyn,[29]
who managed to help her get to the Visto family’s house, which is
located
200 meters away from her house.[30]
It would have been easy to believe such testimony if at the time the
fracas
occurred, there were no other people within the immediate vicinity who
could have come to Gloria’s aid. But, the corroborating testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses’ all declare, that at that time, Gloria’s
four
brothers-in-law were in Rosa Alviola’s house, which was merely ten
meters
away from the place where the alleged hacking occured. Roberto Alviola
testified that he just watched and went inside his house after the
incident
while his other brothers ran away when the incident took place.[31]
It is claimed that they were not able to help Gloria because they were
nervous. The Court finds this utterly incredible and totally absurd. No
amount of stretch of any one’s imagination can it be believed that four
able-bodied men will be so unconcerned so as to just watch and let an
injured
woman, a relative at that, and her two young children, walk 200 meters
for help, when they were already close by and could have readily given
assistance. They did not even exert any effort to call for their
neighbors
for assistance or immediately report the incident. In fact, it had to
take
two women, Rosa and Miguela Alviola, to run to the Alsa Masa detachment
and report the incident.cralaw:red
It is even highly improbable
that petitioners would pursue Gloria into her yard to harm her. In the
first place, the prosecution failed to adduce any plausible reason why
petitioners would suddenly run after Gloria. Also, at the time of the
alleged
chase, Gloria was inside her yard, together with her children,
Glodilito
and Rodilyn, and her sister-in-law, Rosa Alviola.[32]
It is very unlikely that petitioners will have the audacity to attack
Gloria
inside her premises and within the sight of her family members who
could
be witnesses to their alleged malevolent intent to kill Gloria.cralaw:red
Most telling of the
incredibility of the version of the prosecution, is the testimony of
Roberto
Alviola, the victim’s brother-in-law. According to Roberto, he heard
Gloria
shouting for help.[33]
He went out of his house and saw petitioners ganging up on her. After
seeing
this, he went back inside his house, remained there and did nothing.[34]
Meanwhile, his brothers, Efren, Nilo and Modesto, who were with him
earlier,
had ran away.[35]
Such display of apathy or unconcern for a relative goes against
ordinary
human behavior, especially for Filipinos who are noted for close-knit
familial
ties and readiness to help family members at the risk of their own
lives.cralaw:red
Testimonial evidence
to be credible should not only come from the mouth of a credible
witness
but should also be credible, reasonable and in accord with human
experience,
failing in which, it should be rejected.[36]
Moreover, the Court
cannot concur with the appellate court’s observation that it is
"unnatural
and contrary to ordinary human experience for a woman, alone and
unarmed,
to run towards the two male appellants and grapple for the possession
of
an axe."[37]
Such observation cannot be accepted as absolute. The lower courts
failed
to consider the established facts and the circumstances of the case. It
need not be said that there are women who, when provoked, throw caution
to the wind and charge on to fight back. In this case, it is not
"unnatural"
for Gloria to show aggression against petitioners. It is shown that the
petitioners are smaller than Gloria.[38]
Moreover, unrebutted defense evidence disclose that on February 2,
1992,
a day before the incident, Lydia Galabo, wife of petitioner Albino
Galabo
and Aradillos’ older sister, filed with their barangay a complaint for
"harassment, stoning and slight physical injuries" against Gloria.[39]
Summons was served on Gloria through Purok Leader Benjamin Autida in
the
morning of February 3, 1992.[40]
Gloria manifestly harbors an animosity against petitioners and their
family,
and this explains her frenzied reaction towards petitioners when the
incident
occurred.cralaw:red
All these facts and
circumstances when taken into account engender the Court to suspect the
truthfulness of the prosecution’s account. To accuse is one thing, to
prove
is another. In this case, the prosecution’s accusations do not jibe
with
their proofs. As such, the Court has no other recourse but to
disbelieve
the tale as presented by the prosecution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In contrast, the defense’s
account is credible as it is in accord with the natural course of
things.
As told by petitioner Aradillos, it was Gloria who went near Aradillos
who was then cutting the roots of the "idyok" tree, and grabbed the ax,
obviously with the intention of stopping Aradillos from cutting the
tree.
Not wanting to let go of the ax, Aradillos held on to it and the two
then
struggled for its possession. With both of their hands on the handle,
the
ax went swaying and swinging, which accidentally hit Gloria.[41]
The injuries sustained by Gloria, in fact, confirm that it was not
intentional.
For if it were so, petitioner Aradillos would have exerted such force
that
Gloria would have suffered more than what she had sustained. Worse, she
would not have survived at all.cralaw:red
That Gloria and her
brothers-in-law were drinking tuba in the afternoon of February 3,
1992;
that Gloria stoned Galabo and that Aradillos grappled with Gloria for
the
gun as testified to by petitioners and other defense witnesses are more
credible than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. This is
strengthened
by the fact that it was not refuted by the prosecution that her
brothers-in-law
did not come to her aid, and that after she was injured, she had to
seek
her neighbor’s assistance who were 200 meters away instead of her
relatives
who were just nearby. As previously discussed, the Court cannot fathom
why her brothers-in-law did not help Gloria, unless, as testified by
petitioners,
Gloria’s in-laws were drinking tuba prior to the incident and the
former
were already intoxicated and therefore could not have been of any
assistance
to Gloria.cralaw:red
The Court likewise finds
that conspiracy was not established. Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.[42]
Like the offense itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt.[43]
Thus, it has been held that neither joint nor simultaneous action is
per
se sufficient proof of conspiracy.[44]
In the present case,
the defense sufficiently rebutted the accusation that Galabo and
Aradillos
acted in concert in harming Alviola. As their evidence shows, it was
only
Aradillos who struggled with the victim, and Galabo was then fending
off
the stones being thrown by the victim’s brothers-in-law. Galabo had
nothing
to do with the injuries sustained by Gloria. Galabo’s only
participation
in the incident was his presence, but mere presence at the scene of the
crime does not imply conspiracy.[45]
Even assuming that the
prosecution’s version is true, and Galabo hit Gloria with a carpentry
bag
and a piece of wood, and thereafter, Aradillos hacked Gloria, still,
the
seemingly concerted and simultaneous acts of petitioners were more of a
spontaneous reaction to what they perceived to be an aggression by
Gloria,
rather than the result of a common plan to kill the victim. Hence,
their
liability is individual and not collective.[46]
More specifically, Aradillos is solely liable for the injuries
sustained
by Gloria. There is no evidence that Gloria sustained injuries from the
acts of Galabo.cralaw:red
Lastly, the Court cannot
agree with the lower courts’ finding that the nature of Gloria’s
injuries
justifies the conclusion that these were fatal and intentionally
inflicted,
and cannot be the result of a mere struggle such that petitioners are
guilty
of Frustrated Homicide.cralaw:red
Intent to kill is the
principal element of attempted or frustrated homicide, or murder.[47]
Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude
every
possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor.[48]
The testimonies of the doctors who treated Gloria did not establish
with
certainty the nature, extent, depth and severity of the wounds
sustained
by her. Such medical evidence could have shed light as to the relative
position of Aradillos and Gloria at the time the blows were inflicted,
whether the wounds sustained by the victim were a result of an
intentional
infliction or accidental, or whether it was mortal or superficial. In
People
vs. Matyaong,[49]
the Court discussed the importance of ascertaining the degree of injury
sustained by a victim, viz.:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In considering the extent
of injury done, account must be taken of the injury to the function of
the various organs, and also the danger to life. A division into mortal
and nonmortal wounds, if it could be made, would be very desirable; but
the unexpected complications and the various extraneous causes which
give
gravity to the simplest cases, and, on the other hand, the favorable
termination
of some injuries apparently the most dangerous, render any such
classification
impracticable. The general classification into slight, severe,
dangerous,
and mortal wounds may be used, but the possibility of the slight wound
terminating with the loss of the person’s life, and the apparently
mortal
ending with only a slight impairment of some function, must always be
kept
in mind
The danger to life of
any wound is dependent upon a number of factors: the extent of the
injury,
the form of the wound, the region of the body affected, the blood
vessels,
nerves, or organs involved, the entrance of disease-producing bacteria
or other organisms into the wound, the age and constitution of the
person
injured, and the opportunities for administering proper surgical
treatment.[50]
Dr. Generoso B. Alvarez
who initially attended to Gloria and gave her first aid treatment,
opined
that if the bleeding was left untreated, the victim could die in six to
twelve hours but at the same time, but also stated on the witness stand
that Gloria suffered two lacerations on the head which merely required
suturing. Dr. Alvarez testified as follows:
Q How would you describe
the bleeding that you saw?
A Profuse, I would say.cralaw:red
Q In your medical studies
and experience, what appears to be the most heavy bleeding in the part
of the body?
A Generally, wounds
on the head, usually profuse, even small wounds.cralaw:red
Q After a patient was
on your examining table, and you saw blood on her head and on her body,
what did you do?
A I have to examine
the patient on the vital signs, whether the pulse rate and state of
consciousness
was stable, and because my clinic was very limited, when you feel that
there are other colleagues who can do it much better then you, but at
that
time I was at a loss knowing that it was a medico-legal case, but at
that
time I had no other recourse because it was at that time that there was
a jeepney strike, so it took time for her to be transported for the
moment,
so I had to control the bleeding and keep the patient stable until she
could be transported to the hospital.cralaw:red
Q Since you knew that
the patient was stable, what did you do next?
A After cleaning up
the face with blood, I have to inspect the extent of the wound, I put
my
finger on the wound.cralaw:red
Q What did you find
out on the head of the patient?
A There were 2 wounds,
one on the forehead and there was another wound on the right side up on
the scalp, about 2.5 inches.cralaw:red
Q In that wound in the
forehead, what did you do next?
A I inserted my finger
to find out whether there is brain damage or fracture, because you do
not
close a wound if you suspect there is a fracture inside because the
blood
will get inside the brain, and I found out there was a depressed
fracture,
I suppose it was a sharp injury based on the history, there was a
depressed
fracture and the same on the other wound.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. PALABRICA:
Q Are these kind of
wounds painful?
A Painful, for a while.cralaw:red
Q Could that have caused
death on the patient?
A If she was unfortunate,
she could have died. Fortunately for her, it was in the area of the
brain
where it is not very important to us, in fact, you could remove that
portion
of the brain, and still be alived (sic).cralaw:red
Q You said that the
bleeding was profuse, were you able to stop the bleeding?
A Yes.cralaw:red
Q If that bleeding was
not stop (sic), would the patient have died?
A Yes, it was at that
time the jeepney was on strike, normally, you do not suture wound on
the
scalp when you know there is bleeding inside, but under the situation,
there was no way to transport her to the hospital, the first thing I
did
was to stop the bleeding.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q If that wound was
left to bleed on its own, how many minutes would it have taken to live
or die?
A It could depend, 6
to 12 hours.cralaw:red
Q Multiple laceration,
what do you mean?
A More than one laceration.cralaw:red
Q When you say laceration,
what does it mean?
A It is a wound.cralaw:red
Q Laceration could usually
be caused by?
A It could be blunt,
it could be sharp instrument.cralaw:red
Q What do you mean by
2 lacerations?
A Forehead and the scalp.cralaw:red
Q Scalp is also the
laceration of the other wound?
A Yes.cralaw:red
Q There is here exploration
and repair done.cralaw:red
A As I said earlier,
before you touch anything, you have to explore the head.cralaw:red
Q How about the repair?
A Suture.[51]
(emphasis supplied)
Taken in its entirety,
it appears that the wounds sustained by Gloria were not so grave so as
to sustain the claim of the prosecution that petitioners had the
intention
to kill Gloria when she was hit with the ax by Aradillos on the head.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, another prosecution
witness, Dr. Rene Elias Lopez, testified that the fractures on the
right
and left frontal area of Gloria’s skull were slight or minimal.[52]
This weakened the claim of the prosecution that the injuries sustained
by Gloria could have been fatal or were inflicted by Aradillos with
such
force as to establish the intent to kill.cralaw:red
On direct examination,
Dr. Lopez testified that there was no fracture in the skull and that
the
fracture chip did not present much of a problem. Further, he was not
emphatic
on the fatal nature of the injuries sustained by Gloria, thus:
Q "Frontal chip", what
do you mean "chip"?
A It means a small fracture.cralaw:red
Q How small was that?
A It’s quite small,
maybe a finger nail.cralaw:red
Q What happened to the
forehead or frontal bone which was chipped, what happened?
A This means that the
frontal bone had a chip fracture on the bone, left and right areas.
There
was a break in the continuity of the bone.cralaw:red
Q In other words, the
left frontal area of the head was sort of cut and damaged, is that what
you want to tell us?
A The outer layer of
the skull was indeed violated and resulted in the.cralaw:red
ATTY. DE VERA:
Objection, Your Honor,
the witness is incompetent, and no basis.cralaw:red
Q Now, as a doctor,
what would be the effect of the chip on the left and right frontal area
of the head?
COURT:
Lay the basis first.cralaw:red
Q Doctor, are you familiar
with the effects of the chip on the frontal area of the head?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Now, what would be
the effect since you are familiar with the effects?
Q In this case you said
there was a chip in the left forehead or right frontal bone, what would
be the effect doctor of that chip which you identified?
A The chip itself does
not present much of a surgical problem, however there are several
instances
wherein the chip fractured presented in the skull there might be other
injuries which necessitates further management.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q In this case doctor
what did you discover or find in this patient after you examined her?
A The patient, as I
have said presented with a sutured wound. Further X-ray on the skull
showed
a fracture on the frontal bone. So, we were entertaining the
possibility
of an intra-cranial injury inside the skull, and therefore the patient
must be admitted and observed for any further consequence of the injury
sustained.cralaw:red
Q In the same manner
the wound on the right, what would have been the effect of that?
A The same, sir.cralaw:red
Q As far as you know
the wound was depressed?
A There was no depression
in the skull.cralaw:red
Q Doctor, what medication
did you advise the patient after she arrived in the hospital?
A She was under IV,
given anti-biotics, anti-tetanus, prophylactic immunization. She was
placed
in the ICU.cralaw:red
Q What do you mean by
IV?
A Intraveinous fluid.cralaw:red
Q Why?
A We were entertaining
the possibility of an intra-cranial injury. If there is no IV placed
something
might develop as a result of the injury. We might lost time and will
not
be able to give her medication on an emergency basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q In other words, the
patient might die?
ATTY. DE VERA:
Very leading, Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Reform your question.cralaw:red
Q What would have been
the effect doctor if this has not been done?
A The purpose of the
IV is more or a precautionary measure of any untowards incident as a
result
of the injury. That’s why she was admitted to the ICU.cralaw:red
Q Doctor, how about
anti-tetanus, why do you give anti-tetanus?
A Any patient presented
with a break in the skin must be administered with anti-tetanus.cralaw:red
Q Doctor, what were
the others you said?
A Anti-biotics, penicillin
and chloromphenicol.cralaw:red
Q Standard doses? Maximum
doses?
A These are maximum
doses.cralaw:red
Q Why?
A We have to safeguard
the possibility of an intra-cranial injury, therefore maximum dosages
are
what you call recommended on the patient.cralaw:red
Q In other words, if
you do not give the usual medication as you said and administration,
what
is the danger to the patient, please tell us?
A The patient would
develop skin infection.cralaw:red
Q And what would happen
if there is skin infection?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A The wound will not
heal.cralaw:red
Q And what else?
A If it does not heal,
then the patient might develop fever later on.[53]
On cross-examination,
Dr. Lopez further testified:
Q So, as you testified
a while ago, you were the one who interpreted the X-ray findings, and
according
to you, you found compound fractures where?
A Both right and left
frontal area of the skull.cralaw:red
Q Of the forehead?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q But the fracture was
minimal or slight because you said earlier "something like the
equivalent
of a chip", so it was minimal or slight?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And there was no other
surgical operation performed on the patient with respect to the said
fracture
that you found?
A None, sir.cralaw:red
Q In other words, the
fracture could heal by itself through natural process without any
outside
medical intervention? I am referring to the fracture itself.cralaw:red
A The fracture could
heal by itself, yes.[54]
(emphasis supplied)
Dr. Lopez likewise stated
that Gloria was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for further
observation
as a matter of standard procedure because they cannot discount the
possibility
of intra-cranial injury.[55]
The victim was then taken out of the ICU after 24 hours of observation
and discharged from the hospital on February 6, 1992,[56]
three days after the alleged hacking incident. In his Medical
Certificate,
Dr. Lopez made the following diagnosis:
Compound fracture, (R)
and (L) Frontal area 2° to hacking wound GCS 15 RLS 1
Probable healing time
will be Fourteen (14) days barring complication.[57]
There is therefore,
a dearth of medical evidence on record to prove that the nature of
injuries
inflicted by Aradillos showed any willful intent to kill Gloria.cralaw:red
Nonetheless, Aradillos
must be answerable for the injuries he inflicted on Gloria. He cannot
hide
behind the defense of accident to escape the consequences of his act.
Under
Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a person, who while
performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by accident
without
fault or intention of causing it, is exempt from criminal liability.[58]
It cannot be said that Aradillos was performing a lawful act when he
struggled
with Gloria for the ax as the latter’s act of taking hold of the ax was
equivocal, and it cannot be deduced therefrom that he was under the
threat
of an unlawful aggression from her. The defense of accident, therefore,
cannot exempt Aradillos from liability.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although the Information
charged petitioners with Frustrated Murder, a finding of guilt for the
lesser offense of less serious physical injuries may be made
considering
that the latter offense is necessarily included in the former since the
essential ingredients of physical injuries constitute and form part of
those constituting the offense of murder.[59]
Similarly, an accused may be convicted of slight, less serious or
serious
physical injuries in a prosecution for homicide or murder, inasmuch as
the infliction of physical injuries could lead to any of the latter
offenses
when carried to its utmost degree despite the fact that an essential
requisite
of the crime of homicide or murder - intent to kill - is not required
in
a prosecution for physical injuries.[60]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In conclusion, absent
competent proof, and there being no conspiracy, Aradillos should be
held
liable only for less serious physical injuries under Article 265 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended,[61]
as the wounds sustained by Gloria required medical attendance of
fourteen
days.[62]
Galabo must be absolved
from any liability as the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that
he conspired with Aradillos in the commission of the crime.cralaw:red
In imposing the proper
penalty, the lower courts failed to take into consideration the
mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of petitioner Aradillos.
Evidence
show that Aradillos spontaneously and unconditionally surrendered to
the
authorities immediately after the incident, placing himself at their
disposal,
and saving them the time and effort attendant to a search.[63]
Purok Leader Benjamin Autida testified that Aradillos and Galabo
immediately
went to him after the incident and surrendered.[64]
This was corroborated by SP02 Celso Hernandez who attested that by the
time Rosa Alviola reported the incident to them, Autida had already
endorsed
petitioners Aradillos and Galabo to their office.[65]
Thus, the mitigating circumstance should lighten the penalty to be
imposed
on petitioner Aradillos.cralaw:red
Article 265 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, penalizes the crime of Less Serious Physical
Injuries
with arresto mayor, or imprisonment for a period of one month and one
day
to six months. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable in this
case because the maximum penalty does not exceed one year.[66]
Appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and
there
being no aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its
minimum period, or anywhere within a period of one month and one day to
two months.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards the damages
awarded, the Court finds that the award of P1,664.00 as reimbursement
for
medical expenses is in order, it being supported by evidence.[67]
Likewise, the victim having suffered actual injuries, she is entitled
to
moral damages.[68]
The award of P5,000.00 is sufficient under the circumstances.[69]
WHEREFORE, the decision
dated February 12, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17316
is MODIFIED. Petitioner Adonis Aradillos is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries, and sentenced to
suffer two (2) months of imprisonment, and to pay Gloria Alviola the
amount
of One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Four Pesos (P1,664.000) as actual
damages, and Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as moral damages.cralaw:red
Petitioner Albino Galabo
is ACQUITTED and the bail bond posted for his provisional liberty is
cancelled
and released.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis with the concurrence of
Justices
Artemio S. Tuquero and Rodrigo V. Cosico.
[2]
Original Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 74.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, Gloria Alviola, October 12, 1993, pp. 174-180.
[5]
Also referred to as Glodilito by the prosecution witnesses.
[6]
TSN, supra., pp. 186-196; TSN, Rosa Alviola, September 21, 1993,
October
11, 1993, October 12, 1993; TSN, Roberto Alviola, August 6, 1993,
August
11, 1993.
[7]
TSN, Albino Galabo, December 20, 1993, pp. 235-243; TSN, Adonis
Aradillos,
January 17, 1994, pp. 263-271.
[8]
Original Records, p. 313.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
CA Rollo, p. 191.
[10]
Supra., Note 2.
[11]
CA Rollo, p. 192.
[12]
People vs. Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002, 373 SCRA 55, 64-65.
[13]
People vs. Dorimon, G.R. No. 114267, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 43, 50.
[14]
TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 263-268.
[15]
Id., pp. 274-275.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People vs. Lao-as, G.R. No. 126396, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 386, 392.
[17]
People vs. Ebias, G.R. No. 127130, October 12, 2000, 342 SCRA 678, 690.
[18]
G.R. No. 103613, February 23, 2001, 352 SCRA 599.
[19]
Id, p. 607.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Madrid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130683, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA
570,
584.
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, October 12, 1993, p. 186.
[23]
Id., p. 188.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., p. 191.
[25]
TSN, August 18, 1993.
[26]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People vs. Palijon, G.R. No. 123545, October 18, 2000; People vs.
Ubaldo,
G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001.
[28]
People vs. Atadero, G.R. Nos. 135239-40, August 12, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
TSN, October 12, 1993, p. 195.
[30]
Id., p. 193.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
TSN, August 6, 1993, pp. 55-62. August 11, 1993, pp. 65-66.
[32]
TSN, October 12, 1993, p. 187.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN, August 6, 1993, p. 50.
[34]
Id., pp. 60-62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
TSN, August 11, 1993, pp. 65-66.
[36]
People vs. Almazan, G.R. Nos. 138943-44, September 17, 2001, 417 Phil.
697, 705.
[37]
CA Rollo, p. 191.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 264-265.
[39]
TSN, November 29, 1993, p. 201.
[40]
Id., p. 204.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 274-276.
[42]
People vs. Bacungay, G.R. No. 125017, March 12, 2002.
[43]
People vs. Miana, Sr., G.R. No. 134565, August 9, 2001, 362 SCRA 457,
470.
[44]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
People vs. Hilario, G.R. No. 123455, January 16, 1998, 284 SCRA 344,
354.
[46]
People vs. Miana, supra. Note 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People vs. Listerio, G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000, 335 SCRA 40, 64;
People
vs. Gonzalez, Jr., G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001, 359 SCRA 352, 377.
[48]
People vs. Pagador, G.R. Nos. 140006-10, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 299,
309.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
G.R. No. 140206, June 21, 2001, 359 SCRA 392, 399-400.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
Citing Wharton and Stille’s, Medical Jurisprudence, vol. III, fifth
edition,
p. 174 [1905].
[51]
TSN, July 14, 1993, pp. 5-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
TSN, September 23, 1993, pp. 133-134.
[53]
TSN, September 21, 1993, pp. 112 to 117.
[54]
TSN, September 23, 1993, pp. 133-134.
[55]
Id, p. 120.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
TSN, September 23, 1993, pp. 134-135.
[57]
Original Records, p. 194, Exhibit "F" ("7").
[58]
People vs. Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001, 369 SCRA 47,
60.
[59]
People vs. Vicente, G.R. No. 142447, December 21, 2001, 372 SCRA 765,
776-777.
[60]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any person who
shall
inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding
articles,
but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days
or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall
be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the
penalty
of arresto mayor.
[62]
People vs. Pagador, G.R. Nos. 140006-10, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 299,
312.
[63]
People vs. Zate, G.R. No. 129926, October 8, 2001, 366 SCRA 721, 731.
[64]
TSN, August 5, 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
TSN, July 14, 1993, pp. 25-25a.
[66]
Section 2, Act No. 4103, as amended (Indeterminate Sentence Law).
[67]
Exhibits "G", "G-1", "G-2", "G-5", "G-6", "G-7", "G-9"; Original
Records,
pp. 195-197; 200-202, 204.
[68]
Article 2219, Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[69]
People vs. Tan, G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001, 359 SCRA 283, 309. |