FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199579. December 10, 2012.]

RAMON JOSUE y GONZALES , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES , respondent.

RESOLUTION

REYES , J : p

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari led by petitioner Ramon
Josue y Gonzales (Josue) to assail the Decision 1 dated June 30, 2011 and Resolution 2
dated December 1, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33180.
The petitioner was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, via an information that reads:
That on or about May 1, 2004, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of ARMANDO
MACARIO y PINEDA a.k.a. BOYET ORA, by then and there shooting the said
Armando Macario y Pineda a.k.a. Boyet Ora several times with a cal. 45 pistol
hitting him on the different parts of his body, thus performing all the acts of
execution which should have produced the crime of Homicide, as a consequence,
but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will,
that is, by the timely and able medical attendance rendered to the said ARMANDO
MACARIO y PINEDA a.k.a. BOYET ORA which prevented his death thereafter.

Contrary to law. 3

The case was docketed as Crim. Case No. 05-236299 and ra ed to Branch 40 of
the RTC. Upon arraignment, the petitioner entered a plea of "not guilty". After pre-trial, trial
on the merits ensued. SAHEIc

The witnesses for the prosecution were: (1) victim Armando Macario y Pineda
(Macario); (2) Dr. Casimiro Tiongson, Jr. (Dr. Tiongson), Chief Surgical Resident of Chinese
General Hospital; (3) Dr. Edith Calalang (Dr. Calalang), a radiologist; (4) Ariel Villanueva, an
eyewitness to the crime; and (5) Josielyn Macario, wife of the victim. The prosecution
presented the following account:
On May 1, 2004, at around 11:15 in the evening, Macario, a barangay tanod, was
buying medicine from a store near the petitioner's residence in Barrio Obrero, Tondo,
Manila when he saw the petitioner going towards him, while shouting to ask him why he
had painted the petitioner's vehicle. Macario denied the petitioner's accusation, but
petitioner still pointed and shot his gun at Macario. The gunshots red by the petitioner hit
Macario's elbow and ngers. As the unarmed Macario tried to ee from his assailant, the
petitioner still red his gun at him, causing him to sustain a gunshot wound at his back.
Macario was then rushed to the Chinese General Hospital for medical treatment.
Dr. Tiongson con rmed that Macario sustained three (3) gunshot wounds: (1) one
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 on his right hand, (2) one on his left elbow, and (3) one indicating a bullet's entry point at
the posterior of the chest, exiting at the anterior line. Dr. Calalang took note of the tiny
metallic foreign bodies found in Macario's x-ray results, which con rmed that the wounds
were caused by gunshots. Further, she said that the victim's injuries were fatal, if not
medically attended to. Macario incurred medical expenses for his treatments.
For his defense, the petitioner declared to have merely acted in self-defense. He
claimed that on the evening of May 1, 2004, he, together with his son Rafael, was watching
a television program when they heard a sound indicating that the hood of his jeepney was
being opened. He then went to the place where his jeepney was parked, armed with a .45
caliber pistol tucked to his waist. There he saw Macario, together with Eduardo Matias and
Richard Akong, in the act of removing the locks of his vehicle's battery. When the petitioner
sought the attention of Macario's group, Macario pointed his .38 caliber gun at the
petitioner and pulled its trigger, but the gun jammed and failed to re. The petitioner then
got his gun and used it to re at Macario, who was hit in the upper arm. Macario again tried
to use his gun, but it still jammed then fell on the ground. As Macario reached down for the
gun, the petitioner red at him once more, hitting him at the back. When Macario still tried
to re his gun, the petitioner red at him for the third time, hitting his hand and causing
Macario to drop his gun. The petitioner got Macario's gun and kept it in his residence.
The petitioner's son, Rafael Josue, testi ed in court to corroborate his father's
testimony.
SPO4 Axelito Palmero (SPO4 Palmero) also testi ed for the defense, declaring that
on May 26, 2004, he received from Josue a .38 caliber revolver that allegedly belonged to
Macario.
On October 22, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision 4 nding the petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide. It gave full credit to the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, further noting that the defense had failed to prove
that the .38 caliber revolver that was turned over to SPO4 Palmero actually belonged to
Macario. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE , accused RAMON JOSUE y GONZALES is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Frustrated Homicide without any aggravating or
mitigating circumstances to vary the penalty imposable. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.

Accused Ramon Josue y Gonzales is hereby ordered to indemnify the

victim, Armando Macario y Pineda, the sum of [P]32,214.25 for hospitalization
and medicine expenses as actual damages. TCaEAD

The accused's bail is deemed cancelled. Bondsman is ordered to surrender

the accused to this Court for execution of the final judgment.

SO ORDERED. 5

Unsatis ed, the petitioner appealed from the RTC's decision to the CA, which
affirmed the rulings of the RTC and thus, dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the present petition. The petitioner assails the CA's dismissal of the appeal,
arguing that the prosecution had failed to overthrow the constitutional presumption of
innocence in his favor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 We deny the petition.
At the outset, we emphasize that since the petitioner seeks this Court's review of his
case through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of
law shall be addressed by the Court, barring any question that pertains to factual issues on
the crime's commission. The general rule is that questions of fact are not reviewable in
petitions for review under Rule 45, subject only to certain exceptions as when the trial
court's judgment is not supported by su cient evidence or is premised on a
misapprehension of facts. 6
Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case does not fall under any
of the exceptions. In resolving the present petition, we then defer to the factual ndings
made by the trial court, as a rmed by the CA when the case was brought before it on
appeal. The Court has, after all, consistently ruled that the task of assigning values to the
testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which
forms rst-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. Factual ndings of the trial
court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight
and respect by this Court, particularly when a rmed by the CA, and will not be disturbed
absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which
could substantially affect the outcome of the case. 7 SaTAED

As against the foregoing parameters, the Court nds, and so holds, that both the
trial and appellate courts have correctly ruled on the petitioner's culpability for the crime of
frustrated homicide, which has the following for its elements:
(1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a
deadly weapon in his assault;
(2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because
of timely medical assistance; and
(3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code is present.
These elements were duly established during the trial.
The trial court's factual ndings, when taken collectively, clearly prove the existence
of the crime's rst and second elements, pertaining to the petitioner's intent to kill and his
in iction of fatal wound upon the victim. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against
persons may consist, among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the
conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the
victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim. 8
Signi cantly, among the witnesses presented by the prosecution was Villanueva, who,
while being a friend of the petitioner, had testi ed against the petitioner as an eyewitness
and speci cally identi ed the petitioner as the assailant that caused the wounds sustained
by the victim Macario. Even the petitioner cites in the petition he led with this Court the
prosecution's claim that at the time he red the rst gunshot, he was shouting, "Papatayin
kita! (I will kill you!)" 9 The doctors who attended to the victim's injuries also a rmed
before the trial court that Macario had sustained gunshot wounds, and that the injuries
caused thereby were fatal if not given medical attention. The trial court then held:
Weighing the evidence thus proffered, this Court believes the prosecution's
version.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx
The Court gives credence to the testimonies of the witnesses presented by
the prosecution as it did not find any fact or circumstance in the shooting incident
to show that said witnesses had falsely testi ed or that they were actuated by ill-
motive.
xxx xxx xxx

. . . (A)s a result of being shot three (3) times with a .45 caliber gun, complainant
sustained mortal wounds which without medical assistance, complainant could
have died therefrom. Dr. Casimiro Tiongson, Jr., the chief surgical resident who
attended the complainant and prescribed his medicines, testi ed that the victim,
Armando Macario, sustained three (3) gunshot wounds located in the left elbow,
right hand and another bullet entering his posterior chest exiting in front of
complainant's chest. CTSAaH

These ndings were also contained in the x-ray consultation reports

testi ed to by Dr. Edith Calalang as corroborating witness. 1 0 (Citations
omitted)
What is also noteworthy is that the petitioner invoked self-defense, after he had
admitted that he caused the victim's wounds when he shot the latter several times using a
deadly weapon, i.e., the .45 caliber pistol that he carried with him to the situs of the crime.
In People v. Mondigo, 1 1 we explained:
By invoking self-defense, appellant admitted committing the
felonies for which he was charged albeit under circumstances which, if
proven, would justify his commission of the crimes . Thus, the burden of
proof is shifted to appellant who must show , beyond reasonable doubt, that
the killing of Damaso and wounding of Anthony were attended by the following
circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
(3) lack of su cient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. 1 2 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

In order to be exonerated from the charge, the petitioner then assumed the burden
of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that he merely acted in self-defense. Upon review, we
agree with the RTC and the CA that the petitioner failed in this regard.
While the three elements quoted above must concur, self-defense relies, rst and
foremost, on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful
aggression is proved, then no self-defense may be successfully pleaded. 1 3 "Unlawful
aggression" here presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent
danger of the attack, from the victim. 1 4 aHSTID

In the present case, particularly signi cant to this element of "unlawful aggression"
is the trial court's nding that Macario was unarmed at the time of the shooting, while the
petitioner then carried with him a .45 caliber pistol. According to prosecution witness
Villanueva, it was even the petitioner who confronted the victim, who was then only buying
medicine from a sari-sari store. Granting that the victim tried to steal the petitioner's car
battery, such did not equate to a danger in his life or personal safety. At one point during
the ght, Macario even tried to run away from his assailant, yet the petitioner continued to
chase the victim and, using his .45 caliber pistol, red at him and caused the mortal wound
on his chest. Contrary to the petitioner's defense, there then appeared to be no "real
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 danger to his life or personal safety," 1 5 for no unlawful aggression, which would have
otherwise justi ed him in in icting the gunshot wounds for his defense, emanated from
Macario's end.
The weapon used and the number of gunshots red by the petitioner, in relation to
the nature and location of the victim's wounds, further negate the claim of self-defense.
For a claim of self-defense to prosper, the means employed by the person claiming the
defense must be commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack sought to be
averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. 1 6
Considering the petitioner's use of a deadly weapon when his victim was unarmed, and his
clear intention to cause a fatal wound by still ring his gun at the victim who had
attempted to ee after already sustaining two gunshot wounds, it is evident that the
petitioner did not act merely in self-defense, but was an aggressor who actually intended
to kill his victim.
Given the foregoing, and in the absence of any circumstance that would have
quali ed the crime to murder, we hold that the trial court committed no error in declaring
the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide.
Applying the rules provided by the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial court correctly
imposed for such offense an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of
prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
maximum. The award of actual damages is also sustained. However, we hold that in line
with prevailing jurisprudence, 1 7 the victim is entitled to an award of moral damages in the
amount of P10,000.00.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision dated June 30, 2011 and
Resolution dated December 1, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33180 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the petitioner Ramon Josue y Gonzales is also
ordered to pay the offended party the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta
and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring; rollo, pp. 24-43.
2.Id. at 50.

3.Id. at 63.
4.Id. at 63-70.

5.Id. at 69-70.
6.See Gotis v. People, G.R. No. 157201, September 14, 2007, 533 SCRA 441, 447; citation
omitted.

7.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 625, 633; citation
omitted.

8.People v. Lanuza, G.R. No. 188562, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 293, 300.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 9.Rollo, p. 11.

10.Id. at 67-68.
11.G.R. No. 167954, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 384.
12.Id. at 389-390.

13.People v. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 300, 310-311; citations
omitted.

14.Supra note 6, at 449.

15.See Nacnac v. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 846, 856.
16.Razon v. People, G.R. No. 158053, June 21, 2007, 525 SCRA 284, 301; citation omitted.
17.Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 322, 341.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com