THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227101. January 17, 2018.]
JUNNEL MONTE DE RAMOS, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 17, 2018, which reads as follows: ICHDca
"G.R. No. 227101 (Junnel Monte De Ramos v. People of the Philippines)
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Junnel Monte De Ramos (petitioner), praying for the reversal of the June 2, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01168-MIN and its August 4, 2016 Minute Resolution 2 denying his motion for reconsideration. The CA decision denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 23 (RTC), dated December 4, 2013, in Criminal Case No. 17580, finding him guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide.
The information filed against petitioner reads:
That [on] or about 4:30 PM on August 17, 2003, at Purok Baganga, Brgy. Apopong, General Santos City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with the use of a gun, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot the Complainant, Federico Eula, inflicting upon him fatal injuries, which would ordinarily produce the crime of Homicide as a result, but nevertheless did not do so, by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, which is the timely medical treatment given to the said complainant.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge against him.
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the victim Federico Eula (Federico), Edgar Estrebella, Robert Eula, Dionisio Eula, and Dr. Daniel Yap, as witnesses. Their testimonies tend to establish the following:
Federico was walking carrying a scabbard with a samurai sword, which was about two and a half (2 1/2) feet long, towards a shop to have the said samurai sword sharpened. While Federico was walking past the house of petitioner, the latter's father Arcadio Monte (Arcadio) challenged Federico to a fight. At that time, petitioner alighted from a jeepney, drew a .45 caliber pistol, and fired at Federico. The latter sustained a gunshot wound on the upper right abdomen, causing the perforation of his large and small intestines. These injuries were considered serious by the attending surgeon.
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented petitioner, Arnel Vergara, Dante Vergara, and PO3 Angelito Ocmar. The defense witnesses stated that they saw Federico outside petitioner's house, shouting and challenging Arcadio to a fight. Arcadio was not home so Federico went back to his house. Petitioner arrived moments later, and at that time Federico returned to petitioner's house, carrying a samurai sword. Federico then challenged petitioner to a fight. The latter had just alighted from a jeepney, but retreated when Federico appeared to raise his samurai sword. Petitioner then fired warning shots with his .45 caliber pistol which he obtained from his bag. He claimed that he was cornered so he shot Federico in the abdomen. Petitioner then went inside the house and arranged for his surrender to PO3 Allan Ocmar.
Ruling of the RTC
In its decision, dated December 4, 2013, the RTC found that petitioner's invocation of self-defense failed to persuade. By his admission that he shot Federico, the burden of proof shifted to him but he was unable to satisfactorily prove the existence of the essential requisites of self-defense. To the trial court, the testimony of petitioner was indefinite and unclear as to the actual, sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger on his life or limb. It appeared from his testimony that Federico attempted to hack him with a samurai sword, but the nearest distance between them, which was about two (2) meters, was not enough for Federico's hack to reach him as said samurai sword was only two and a half (2 1/2) feet long. The RTC also took into consideration the age and circumstances of Federico, who was 69 years old and was also inebriated at the time of the incident, and petitioner who was only 25 years old. The trial court opined that this age difference and Federico's state would have enabled petitioner to outrun and avoid Federico.
Thus, the RTC ruled that there was no need for petitioner to fire his gun to stop the attack as Federico never came close to him. Federico's act of raising his samurai sword was merely a threatening and intimidating action which never placed petitioner's life or limb in peril. 5 There was also an intent to kill as petitioner aimed and hit the abdomen of Federico. Based on these, the RTC found petitioner guilty of frustrated homicide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: TCAScE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Junnel Monte de Ramos is found GUILTY of the crime of frustrated homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, he is hereby meted the indeterminate penalty of FIVE (5) YEARS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL AS MINIMUM TO SEVEN (7) YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR AS MAXIMUM.
SO ORDERED. 6
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its decision, dated June 2, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC's factual findings that petitioner failed to establish that he acted in self-defense. It observed that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Federico as he was just walking along in front of petitioner's house when the latter shot him. The CA also noted that even if Federico initiated the attack, there was still no need for petitioner to shoot him in the abdomen if only to disable or stop Federico from attacking him. It also sustained the penalty meted out by the RTC, which took into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its resolution dated August 4, 2016.
Hence, this petition.
Issue
WHETHER THERE WAS UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM THAT JUSTIFIED THE ACTS OF PETITIONER TO ABSOLVE HIM OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Petitioner argued that unlawful aggression on the part of Federico was duly established in this case because the latter initiated the intimidating acts and tried to cause petitioner bodily harm. Reiterating his version of the incident, petitioner claimed that there were three (3) attempts to prevent the assault by Federico, but the latter disregarded the warnings. He posited that the reasoning of the RTC and the CA as to the existence of unlawful aggression was contrary to prevailing jurisprudence.
In its Comment 7 dated April 4, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt because all the elements for the offense of frustrated homicide were sufficiently proven. Further, it underscored that petitioner failed to prove that he acted in self-defense because there was failure to establish the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of Federico.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
The rules on evidence require that an accused must prove his act of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. The admission of an accused that he committed the delictual acts shifts the onus probandi to the latter to prove that the basic conditions of self-defense exist so as to escape criminal liability. 8 Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the foremost element that the accused must prove for the claim of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Apart from unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused must also be proven. 9
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person defending himself. A mere perception of an impending attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression, neither is an intimidating or threatening attitude. 10
This Court sustains the factual findings of both the RTC and the CA. As to the findings of fact and assessment of the credibility of witnesses, utmost credence is given to those made by the trial court, especially when upheld by the CA. It is the trial court that has the opportunity to observe the deportment of witnesses on the stand which is not reflected on the written submissions of the parties. Thus, the findings of the trial court are accorded finality unless a fact or circumstance was overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, which if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. 11
In this case, there are two (2) contradicting versions of the same incident. There was no question that Federico was in the vicinity of petitioner's house with his samurai sword. Assessing the evidence presented by petitioner, however, the Court finds that it simply does not show how Federico committed the alleged unlawful aggression on petitioner. On the contrary, it proved that petitioner, who just alighted from a jeepney, had time and opportunity to obtain his gun from his bag. From that point on, the supposed unlawful aggression could have stopped, and yet petitioner still chose to shoot Federico in a sensitive and life-threatening part of the body such as the abdomen. As noted by the courts below, there are also substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense witnesses that would make it difficult for the Court to consider them as clear, convincing, and incontrovertible evidence. cTDaEH
As correctly pointed out by the RTC, petitioner's own testimony only stated that Federico raised his hand, but was unable to hack petitioner. When the latter fired the initial two (2) warning shots, Federico stopped but moved forward again and "appeared to want to hack" petitioner. He claimed that when he felt he was cornered, he aimed at the abdomen and pulled the trigger. Petitioner likewise testified that the closest distance between him and Federico was about two (2) meters. This Court notes the finding that the samurai sword used to allegedly attack petitioner was only two and a half (2 1/2) feet long or barely three-fourths (3/4) of a meter. The incident also happened out on the street, which was more than five (5) meters wide. 12 Hence, there was enough room for petitioner to avoid the supposed attempts of a much older and intoxicated man. His claim of being cornered loses its credibility in the face of all the contradicting evidence.
Granted that Federico attempted to hack petitioner using a samurai sword, considering the nature and characteristics of the weapon used and Federico's overall state, the same act would not fall under the definition of unlawful aggression as defined by law. Withal, Federico was only acting in an intimidating or threatening manner, and not in a way law and jurisprudence would treat as justifying petitioner's subsequent shooting Federico in the stomach. His admission that he aimed the pistol and shot Federico in the stomach strengthens the conclusion that instead of trying to protect himself and only repel the supposed unlawful aggression of Federico, he truly intended to harm, if not kill, Federico.
Intent to kill is an essential element of the offense of frustrated or attempted homicide and must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. The Court has repeatedly noted that the weapon used by an accused, its nature, and the direction to which it was aimed, is determinative of whether one acted in self-defense. 13 In a number of cases, it was held that frustrated homicide is committed when a successful hit on the stomach caused injury necessitating medical attention. 14 Given all these, this Court is inclined to rule that not only was unlawful aggression absent, but there was also intent to kill on the part of petitioner.
Undoubtedly, petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proof and he should be made liable for the crime of frustrated homicide. Indeed, the CA did not commit any reversible error in upholding the RTC decision, holding petitioner's self-defense claim untenable, and finding him guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The June 2, 2016 Decision and the August 4, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01168-MIN are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 25-32. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin concurring.
2.Id. at 33.
3.Id. at 34-43, penned by Judge Andres N. Lorenzo, Jr.
4.Id. at 34.
5.Id. at 42.
6.Id. at 43.
7.Id. at 77-87.
8.People of the Philippines v. Ansus, 453 Phil. 1030, 1037 (2003).
9.People of the Philippines v. Concillado, 677 Phil. 390, 409 (2011).
10.People of the Philippines v. Arnante, 439 Phil. 754, 758, 761 (2002).
11.People of the Philippines v. Ansus, supra Note 5, 1038.
12.Rollo, p. 41.
13.Adame v. Court of Appeals, et al., 440 Phil. 827, 839 (2002).
14. See cases People of the Philippines v. Salva, et al., 424 Phil. 63, 78-79 (2002), Adame v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra Note 13.