FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232438. January 22, 2018.]
MONDINIEDO C. BAUTISTA, SR., petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 22, 2018which reads as follows: HSAcaE
"G.R. No. 232438 (Mondiniedo C. Bautista, Sr. v. People of the Philippines). — The Motion for Extension of Time 1 filed by petitioner seeking an additional 30 days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.
Nevertheless, after a judicious consideration of the case, the Petition for Review 2 filed by petitioner is DENIED for lack of merit. The petition has failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed a reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision 3 and Resolution 4 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37741. The CA affirmed the Judgment 5 of the Regional Trial Court, which had found petitioner guilty of the crime of homicide. 6
The lower courts did not err in ruling that the stabbing incident was the proximate cause of the victim's death. The Certificate of Death indicated that the immediate cause of death was a "stab wound, epigastric (L) with injury of the liver." 7 This information was consistent with the admission of petitioner that he stabbed the victim.
Petitioner utterly failed to substantiate his allegation that the victim had died of a cause other than the stab wound. He merely alleged that the latter's death "may have been proximately caused by a tetanus infection" without providing any evidence to prove that claim. 8
Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. 9 Hence, the allegation of petitioner cannot prevail over the overwhelming evidence proving his guilt. 10
Moreover, we agree with the trial court that Dr. Florentino Ocampo's testimony during cross-examination that the death of the victim might have been caused by another medical problem was purely speculative, since the statement was predicated merely on a theoretical proposition. 11
This testimony was in contrast to the medical opinion of the same doctor based on his physical examination of the victim's body, an opinion that was factual. 12 On direct examination, he testified that the cause of the injury suffered by the victim could have been a sharp object, and that if no medical and surgical intervention was given, the latter would have died of bleeding. 13 These statements bolstered the fact that the stabbing incident was indeed the proximate cause of the victim's death.
Likewise, the claim of self-defense proffered by petitioner must also fail, because he was not able to satisfactorily show that the victim was the unlawful aggressor.
Prosecution witness Danilo Bueno testified that when the victim went to see petitioner, the purpose was to make peace with the latter following their altercation. But when petitioner opened his door, he immediately clubbed the victim. This testimony was corroborated by Eddie de la Cruz, another eyewitness. Also, petitioner admits that the victim never hit him with the piece of wood that the latter was then holding. Yet, he stabbed the victim allegedly to defend himself. 14
Unlawful aggression of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without it, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. 15 Having failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, petitioner's claim of self-defense cannot be accorded credence and weight. Hence, the RTC and the CA rightly rejected this plea.
IN VIEW THEREOF, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Court of Appeals Decision dated 21 December 2016 and Resolution dated 14 June 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37741.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6, dated 17 July 2017.
2.Id. at 10-32.
3.Id. at 78-91, dated 21 December 2016, penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
4.Id. at 104-105, dated 14 June 2017.
5.Id. at 53-62; dated 8 February 2015; penned by Presiding Judge Rodolfo B. Dizon.
6. The dispositive portion of the Judgment of the RTC reads: "WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing discussions, accused Mondiniedo Bautista Sr., is pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide (Art. 249, Revised Penal Code). Consequently, this Court penalizes him to suffer imprisonment with the indeterminate penalty of 8 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
He is ordered to pay likewise the heirs of the deceased victim Roy Suguitan y Balantac the sum of:
1. Php50,000 as moral damages x x x
2. Php50,000 as civil indemnity, with 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment
3. Temperate damages of Php50,000.
SO ORDERED."
7.Rollo, p. 89.
8.Id. at 26.
9.People v. Caramelo, G.R. No. 195533, 20 August 2014.
10. See People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 200081, 8 June 2016, 792 SCRA 518.
11.Rollo, p. 61.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 55.
14.Id. at 59-60.
15.Sombilon v. People, G.R. No. 177246, 25 September 2017.