Rolly Adame v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 8, 1995, Manolito Lacsamana and his children went to Ruben Lacsamana's house to confront him for testifying against Manolo in a previous killing case. Manolo threw a stone at Ruben's window and fled. Later, Manolito returned and challenged Ruben. Petitioner Rolly Adame emerged from his house and fired two shots at Manolito and Mildred; the second shot hit Manolito in the stomach. Teresito Adame, petitioner's father, also fired shots upwards. Manolito survived due to timely medical treatment. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Rolly Adame guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to imprisonment and actual damages, acquitting Teresito Adame. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Rolly Adame sought reversal, arguing the CA erred in giving probative value to prosecution testimonies, disregarding defense testimonies, not extending the acquittal of his father to him, and in not convicting him of serious physical injuries instead of frustrated homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict petitioner of frustrated homicide. Whether the proper penalty and damages were imposed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification regarding the penalty and damages. Petitioner Rolly Adame was found guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum. He was ordered to pay Manolito Lacsamana P20,000 as temperate damages and P30,000 as moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence for frustrated homicide: The Court found petitioner's testimony to be contrived and his claim of sleeping after hearing gunshots to be unnatural and contrary to human experience. The defense witnesses' credibility was undermined by their close relation to the petitioner, indicating bias. Petitioner's flight from the scene immediately after the incident, as testified by SPO2 Mario Panaligan, was considered evidence tending to establish his guilt. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Manolito and Mildred Lacsamana regarding minor details, such as the distance of houses or Mildred's loss of consciousness, were deemed inconsequential and even strengthened their credibility by suggesting the testimonies were not rehearsed. Crucially, their testimonies agreed on material points, and the trial court's assessment of credibility, affirmed by the appellate court, is given great weight. The Court found the intent to kill to be evident from the use of a gun and the shot aimed at the victim's stomach, which caused serious injuries to vital organs. The nature of the wound, which would normally cause death, coupled with the timely medical intervention, established the commission of frustrated homicide. The Court also noted that motive, while not strictly necessary when identity is established, was suggested by the petitioner's suspicion that Manolito's son was responsible for his uncle's death. On the proper penalty and damages: The Court modified the penalty imposed by the CA. Citing Article 249 and Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, it stated that frustrated homicide is punishable by prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty should be within the range of prision correccional, and the maximum from the medium period of prision mayor. Thus, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum, as no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were present. Regarding damages, the Court disallowed the P59,700 in actual damages due to the lack of supporting receipts. However, it awarded P20,000 as temperate damages, considering the circumstances, and P30,000 as moral damages for physical suffering and mental anguish, as permitted in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries.
Main Doctrine
The unexplained flight of an accused may be taken as evidence tending to establish guilt. Inconsistent testimonies on minor details may strengthen credibility, while agreement on material points is crucial. The intent to kill for frustrated homicide is evident from the weapon used and the nature of the wound, and death would have resulted absent timely medical attention.