G.R. No.

206632

EDENETINO, Petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

We resolve this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
August 29, 2012 Decision  and the March 11, 2013 Resolution  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
1 2

G.R. CR No. 00896. The CA affirmed with modification the January 14, 2008 Decision  of the
3

Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Iloilo City, which found petitioner Eden Etino guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide, in that the CA ordered petitioner to pay the
victim ₱25,000.00 as moral damages and ₱l0,000.00 as temperate damages.

The Antecedent Facts

Petitioner was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide in an Information  dated June 19, 2003
4

which reads:

That on or about the 5th day of November 2001, in the Municipality of Maasin, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed
with an unlicensed firearm of unknown caliber, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot JESSIEREL LEYBLE
with said unlicensed firearm he was then provided at the time, hitting and inflicting upon the victim
gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body, thus performing all the acts of execution which
would produce the crime of homicide as a consequence but which nevertheless did not produce it by
reason of some cause or causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, by the timely
medical attendance rendered to the said Jessierel Leyble which prevented his death.

Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.  Trial thereafter ensued.
5

The Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution's evidence consists mainly of the testimonies of complainant Jessierel Leyble
(Leyble), Isidro Maldecir (Maldecir), and Nida Villarete Sonza (Sonza), the Administrative and
Medical Officer of the West Visayas State University Medical Center (WVSUMC).

During the trial, Leyble testified that, "at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of November 5, 2001,
while he and his companions[,] Isidro Maldecir nnd Richard Magno[,] were walking on their way
home to Bgy. [sic] Pispis, Maasin, Iloilo, he was shot with a 12 gauge shotgun by the [petitioner,]
Eden Etino[,] hitting the back portion of his right shoulder and other parts of his body."
6

Leyble's testimony was corroborated by Maldecir who categorically stated that Leyble was shot by
petitioner from behind, and was thereafter brought to the Don Benito Lopez Memorial Hospital (now
known as the WVSUMC) for treatment. 7

To prove the injuries suffered by Leyble, the prosecution presented Sonza "in her capacity as [the
officer] in-charge of the security of all the medical records of the patients [in the WVSUMC] for the
reason that Dr. Rodney Jun Garcia, then Chief Resident, Surgery Department, [WVSUMC], who
treated [Leyble was] unable to testify as he is now based in General Santos City." 8

In compliance with the Subpoena Duces Tecum  issued by the RTC on February 22, 2005, Sonza
9

brought the medical records of Leyble to court which included: a) Medical Certificate  dated
10

December 20, 200 l, b) Trauma Sheet  dated November 5, 2001, c) Admission and [Discharge]
11

Record  and d) Operative Records  dated November 16, 2001, and certified the same to be true and
12 13

faithful reproductions of the original documents. 14

The Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented the testimonies of Bautista Etino, Wenifredo Besares, Joeseryl Masiado and
of petitioner himself to prove his alibi. 15

The witnesses testified that, "at about 4:30 in the afternoon of November 5, 2001, [petitioner] was
with Bgy. [sic] Captain Manuel Bomejan, Wenifredo Besares and [Bautista Etino at] the house of the
latter which was situated about one kilometer away from where they heard shots that
afternoon."  They also alleged that the filing of the criminal complaint was precipitated by a pending
16

Comelec  gun-ban case before the RTC filed against Leyble, wherein petitioner was the witness.
17 18

The Regional Trial Court Ruling

In its January 14, 2008 Decision,  the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
19

crime of frustrated homicide. It ruled that petitioner was positively identified as the perpetrator of the
crime charged against him, especialiy so, when the complainant, Leyble, was alive to tell what
actually happened. 20

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (l)
day of prision mayor, as maximum. Notably, it did not award any damages in favor of Leyble, as it
found that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of presenting evidence on the civil
aspect of the case. 21

The Court of Appeals Ruling

On appellate review, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision in that, it ordered petitioner
to pay Leyble the amounts of ₱25,000.00 as moral damages and ₱l0,000.00 as temperate
damages. 22

The CA ruled that "the trial court did not err in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses. Evaluation of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses amply
[showed] that Jessierel Leyble succinctly but clearly narrated how he was shot and he also
categorically identified [petitioner] as his assailant."
23

In addition, the CA held that the mere delay in the filing of the complaint did not necessarily
undermine the credibility of witnesses; and in this case, the fear of reprisal explained why it took
some time for Leyble to file the complaint and to finally reveal the identity of his assailant.24

The CA also rejected petitioner's claim that Leyble filed the case against him because he testified
against the latter in the Comelec gun-ban case. It explained that "[e]ven assuming that there was a
grudge between Leyble and [petitioner], that [did] not automatically render the testimony of Leyble
unbelievable. Moreover, considering that Leyble had positively identified [petitioner], whom he
[knew] from childhood, as his assailant, motive [was] no longer essential or relevant." 25

Finally, the CA held that Leyble was entitled to moral damages, as it was clear from his testimony
that he sustained gunshot wounds on his shoulder; and to temperate damages for the medical
treatn1ent he received but for which no documentary evidence was presented to prove the actual
costs thereof.26

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its Resolution  dated March
27

11, 2013. As a consequence, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the
Court, assai1ing the CA's August 29, 2012 Decision  and the March 11, 2013 Resolution.
28

The Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues for the Court's consideration:

First, whether the CA erred in holding that his guilt for the charged crime of frustrated homicide was
proven beyond reasonable doubt, since the physician who examined the victim was not presented in
court;

Second, whether the CA erred when it found the testimonies of petitioner and his witnesses to be
incredible and unbelievable; and,

Third, whether the CA erred when it disregarded petitioner's defenses, i.e., the lapse of

The Court's Ruling

At the outset, we clarify that questions of fact, as a rule, cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition,
where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been
committed by the lower courts.  Nevertheless, when it appears that the assailed judgment is based
29

on a misapprehension of facts, and the findings of the lower courts are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based,  as in this case, the Court may probe questions of fact
30

in a Rule 45 proceeding.

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages of a felony as follows:

ART. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies, as

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender perfom1s all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Emphasis supplied)
In Palaganas v. People,  the Court outlined the distinctions between a frustrated and an attempted
31

felony:

1.) In frustrated felony, the offender has perfom1ed all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony as a consequence; whereas in attempted felony, the of lender merely commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not pe1form all the acts of execution.

2.) In frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is some cause
independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the other hand, in attempted felony, the reason for the
non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than tl1e offender's own spontaneous
desistance.

In addition to these distinctions, we have ruled in several cases that when the accused intended to
kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained
fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime committed is
frustrated murder or frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the qualifying
circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code are present. However, if the wound/s
sustained by the victim in such a case were not fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is only
attempted murder or attempted homicide. If there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused and
the wound/s sustained by the victim were not fatal, the crime committed may be serious, less serious
or slight physical injury.  (Emphasis supplied)
32

Thus, in order to determine whether the crime committed is attempted or frustrated parricide, murder
or homicide, or only lesiones (physical injuries), the crucial points to consider are: a) whether the
injury sustained by the victim was fatal, and b) whether there was intent to kill on the part of the
accused. 33

No proof of the extent of injury