Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

MARTINEZ VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
Ponente: Callejo
This case is a petition for review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of Court of Appeals finding
Benjamin P. Martinez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide (with modification from
the trial courts judgment).
FACTS:
October 28, 1998, Dean and his wife Freda filed a complaint for damages against the spouses
Martinez in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tubao, La Union. The latter was accused of allegedly
peddling false reports that Dean and Elvisa Bassalo (previous mistress of the petitioner) had illicit
relations. They prayed an aggregate amount of P 100,000.00 for moral, exemplary, and litigation fees.
The alleged mistress, Elvisa, also filed a complaint against spouses Martinez, for the same reason. On
February 3, 1999, the spouses Martinez filed a motion to dismiss but the court denied the motion.
The Crime
On February 3, 1999, 1:40pm, Dean went to the Tubao Credit Cooperative office to pick the
dividend certificate of his wife who was a member of the cooperative. When Dean was about a step
away from an L-300 van, the petitioner armed with 14 -inch bolo suddenly emerged from behind the
vehicle and stabbed him on the left breast. Dean instantly moved backward and fled to the bank. As
Martinez tried to stab him again, Dean was able to parry and the bolo hit him in the right elbow. Dean
managed to run in the counter where Martinez was unable to get in. When SPO1 Henry Ulatre arrived at
the scene, Barangay Captain Rodolfo Oller and his son Nicky handed to him the bolo and brought the
petitioner to the police station and jailed. Dean sustained two fatal stab wounds in the anterior chest,
left, and a lacerated wound in the right elbow.
Dean, according to the petitioner, was jealous of him because his mistress, Elvisa, had also been
his mistress. Petitioner also declared that Dean was throwing invectives against him and his 82-year old
uncle Godofredo Sarmiento who was also on his way to the cooperative which led the petitioner pulled
his bolo and stabbed Dean.
On April 30, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment convicting petitioner of frustrated
homicide. On February 21, 2005, CA rendered the judgment affirming the assailed decision of the RTC
with modification.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the petitioners claim of self-defense is a ground to negate any reasonable
doubt as to his guilt
(2) Whether the decision and resolution arose from misapprehension of facts that prove that the
proceedings and findings were based on false charge which is patently fabricated by a police
investigator and which comprises malicious prosecution?
(3) Whether the decision and resolution have total absence of evidence to prove vacuous charge
for which the guilt of the accused was not duly proved beyond reasonable doubt?
(4) Whether or not he should be convicted of the crime of less serious physical injuries only because
of the absence of element to kill
(5) Whether or not the CAs decision finding Martinez guilty of frustrated homicide proper
HELD:
(1) The petitioner submitted his counter-affidavit without any protest. Neither did he assail the
validity of the criminal complaint nor the tardy submission by SPO1 Sultare of the medical
certificate, the affidavit of Dean and the affidavit of arrest of SPO1 Sulatre. Aside from this,
petitioner was arraigned in the RTC, assisted by counsel, and entered a plea of not guilty.
(2) There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the accused proves unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. Petitioner failed to discharge his burden.
(3) Findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of the witnesses and the
probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed are accorded high respect, if not conclusive
effect, by the court and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from said findings.
(4) Intent to kill, on the other hand, may be proved by evidence of the following: (a) motive, (b)
nature or number of weapons used, (c) nature and number of wounds inflicted, (d) manner the
crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries were
inflicted by him on the victim. Petitioner insists that he had no intent to kill Dean. However, the
physical evidence belies his pose.
(5) The court ruled that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Frustrated Murder under
Article 248 in relation to Article 6 (first paragraph) of RPC finding treachery on the part of the
petitioner and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty from 9 years and 4 months of
prision mayor in its medium period, as a minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as maximum and to pay Dean Dongui-is P56,275.48 as actual
damages; P 25,000 as moral damages; another P 25,000 as exemplary damages; and P10,000 as
attorneys fees.

PEOPLE VS. CABALLERO
Ponente: Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
Afternoon of August 3, 1994: Armando (Baby), Robito (Bebot), Marciano Jr (Jun) had a drinking
spree in the house of their brother Ricardo in Mondragon Compound. At 7pm, Eugene Tayactac and
Arnold Barcuma arrived in sari-sari store of Wilma Broce.

Armando arrived in the store and asked Eugene in angry tone if the latter will buy. Armando left
the store but stood by the gate of the barbed-wire fence. Armando suddenly grabbed Eugene and upon
the latters resistance, the three brothers, armed with knives, assaulted him. Armando hit Eugene
through wooden pole supporting the clothesline and was stabbed 3 times. Myrna shouted for help and
Wilma, witness, was shocked to immobility at the sudden turn of events.

Arnold saw the commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However,
Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. Forthwith, Robito, Marciano,
Jr., and Armando ganged up on Arnold. Arnold fled for his life and hid under the house of a neighbor. On
the other hand, Leonilo rushed from his house to the scene where Robito stabbed him on the chest. The
commotion stopped only upon the arrival of Teresito Mandragon who was able to pacify the Caballero
brothers.
Leonilo and Eugene, however, eventually died from the stab wounds they sustained.

ISSUES: Whether or not the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
(1) Murder for both Leonilo Broce and Eugene Tayactac
(2) Frustrated murder for Arnold Barcuma
HELD:
(1) The court ruled that the appellants are not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
murder for Leonilo Broce. This is due to the prosecutions failure to adduce evidence that the
appellants and the accused Robito conspired to kill Leonilo. Hence the acquittal of the
appellants on the crime charged.
However, the appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified with
treachery as to Eugene and are sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay in
solidum the heirs the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.

(2) The appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder in relation to
Article 6 First paragraph ad Article 248 and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
9 years and 4 months of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal. Also,
appellants are ordered to pay the victim, in solidum, the amounts of P 25,000 as moral damages
and P 10,000 as temperate and moderate damages.


PEOPLE VS. LIZADA
Ponente: Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
A couple in Bohol had three children, one of them being Analia Orillosa (born in 1985). They
separated and the wife took with her the kids and worked as a waitress in Manila where she (the wife)
met Lizada and lived together. The spouses put up a video shop and Rose sold Avon products door to
door.
In 1996, Analia who was 11 years old then had his first sexual abuse with his stepfather, lizada,
who entered her room and had intercourse with her. Lizada threatened Analia that he would kill her
when she divulges what happened. From 1996-1998, Lizada sexually abused the victim twice a week. On
November 5, 1998, Lizada wearing only shorts entered Analias room. Analia was not afraid because her
younger brother was just around the house. However, Lizada was still able to have intercourse with her.
The brother passed by Analias room and saw Lizada on top of her. Lizada dismounted and berated the
brother, told him to go to his room and sleep.
Rosa knew just knew the incident only when Lizada and Analia had a quarrel. The latter shouted:
Ayoko na, ayoko na and when Rosa asked her daughter to explain what she meant by this, Analia told
her mother that Lizada had been touching her private parts. This prompted Rosa to report with the
police and had Analia undergo medical examination (and found her hymen intact).

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not trial court gravely erred in not making a finding of fact in its decision and;
(2) Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting accussed-appellant of four (4) counts
of rape despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

(1) In this case, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements under the Constitution and
the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It merely summarized. It even failed to specifically state the
facts proven by the prosecution based on their evidence, the issues raised by the parties and its
resolution of the factual and legal issues, as well as the legal and factual bases for convicting
accused-appellant of each of the crimes charged
(2) The judgment was rendered as follows:
a. In Criminal Case No. 99-171390 (happened sometime August 1998), accused-appellant
is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape is hereby meted the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay private complainant Analia Orillosa
the amounts of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity and P50,000.00 by way of moral
damages;
b. In Criminal Case No. 99-171391 (happened November 5, 1998), accused-appellant is
guilty of attempted rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended in
relation to Article 6 of the said Code and is hereby meted an indeterminate penalty of
from six years of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum to ten years
of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum; ordered to pay private complainant
Analia Orillosa the amount of P25,000.00 by way of moral damages; and,
c. In Criminal Cases Nos. 99-171392 and 99-171393 (October 22 and September 15, 1998,
respectively), accused-appellant is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
counts of simple rape, defined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended and
is hereby meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count; ordered to pay to
private complainant Analia Orillosa the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity
and the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages for each count, or a total
amount of P200,000.00.