FE ABELLA y PERPETUA, Petitioner, vs. People OF THE Philippines, Respondent

7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706
G.R. No. 198400. October 7, 2013.*

FE ABELLA y PERPETUA, petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals;

Petition for Review on Certiorari; A petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal
from a ruling of a lower tribunal on pure
questions of law.―Century Iron Works, Inc. and
Benito Chua v. Eleto B. Bañas, 699 SCRA 157
(2013), is instructive anent what is the subject
of review in a petition filed under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, viz.: A petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal from a
ruling of a lower tribunal on pure questions of
law. It is only in exceptional circumstances that
we admit and review questions of fact. A
question of law arises when there is doubt as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts, while
there is a question of fact when the doubt arises
as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For
a question to be one of law, the question must
not involve an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the litigants
or any of them. The resolution of the issue must
rest solely on what the law provides on the
given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016be130ecd97cf23bad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/28
the issue invites a review of the evidence

presented, the question posed is one of fact.
Criminal Law; Homicide; Elements of.―To
successfully prosecute the crime of homicide,
the following elements must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed;
(2) that the
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
782
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
accused killed that person without any

justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused
had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
and (4) that the killing was not attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the
offender is said to have performed all the acts of
execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is
mortal and could cause the death of the victim
without medical intervention or attendance.
Same; Frustrated Homicide; In cases of
frustrated homicide, the main element is the
accused’s intent to take his victim’s life. The
prosecution has to prove this clearly and
convincingly to exclude every possible doubt
regarding homicidal intent.―In cases of

frustrated homicide, the main element is the
accused’s intent to take his victim’s life. The
prosecution has to prove this clearly and
convincingly to exclude every possible doubt
regarding homicidal intent. And the intent to
kill is often inferred from, among other things,
the means the offender used and the nature,
location, and number of wounds he inflicted on
his victim.
Same; Same; It does not require
imagination to figure out that a single hacking
blow in the neck with the use of a scythe could be
enough to decapitate a person and leave him
dead.―This Court concludes and thus agrees
with the CA that the use of a scythe against
Benigno’s neck was determinative of the
petitioner’s homicidal intent when the hacking
blow was delivered. It does not require
imagination to figure out that a single hacking
blow in the neck with the use of a scythe could
be enough to decapitate a person and leave him
dead. While no complications actually developed
from the gaping wounds in Benigno’s neck and
left hand, it perplexes logic to conclude that the
injuries he sustained were potentially not fatal
considering the period of his confinement in the
hospital. A mere grazing injury would have
necessitated a lesser degree of medical
attention.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the

decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.

783
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 783

Abella vs. People
The Solicitor General for respondent.
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari1 from the Decision2 and
Resolution3 dated October 26, 2010 and
August 11, 2011, respectively, of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00336-
MIN affirming with modifications the
conviction4 by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de
Oro City, Branch 39 of Fe Abella y
Perpetua (petitioner) for the crime of
frustrated homicide committed against his
younger brother, Benigno Abella (Benigno).
The RTC sentenced the petitioner to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years
and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision
mayor as minimum, to ten (10) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision
mayor as maximum, and to pay Benigno
P100,000.00 as consequential damages,
P10,000.00 for the medical expenses he
incurred, plus the costs of suit.5 The CA
concurred with the RTC’s factual findings.
However, the CA modified the penalty
imposed to six (6) months and one (1) day
to six (6) years of prision correccional as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1)

day of prision mayor in its medium period
as maximum. The CA also deleted the
RTC’s award in favor of Benigno of (a)
P10,000.00 as actual damages
corresponding to the medical expenses
allegedly incurred; and (b) P100,000.00 as
consequential damages. In lieu of the
preceding, the CA ordered the petitioner to
pay Benigno
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 11-31.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Edgardo A.
Camello and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring; CA
Rollo, pp. 74-82.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello,
with Associate Justices Abraham B. Borreta and
Melchor Quirino C. Sadang, concurring; id., at pp.
112-116.
4 Issued by Judge Downey C. Valdevilla, id., at pp.
31-43.
5 Id., at p. 43.
784

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
P30,000.00 as moral damages and

P10,000.00 as temperate damages.6
Antecedent Facts
On October 7, 1998, the petitioner, who

at times worked as a farmer, baker and
trisicad driver, was charged with
frustrated homicide in an Information7
which reads:
That on or about September 6, 1998, at

11:00 o’clock in the evening, more or less, at
Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without any justifiable cause, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and with intent to kill, attack,
assault, harm and hack one, BENIGNO
ABELLA y PERPETUA, with the use of a
scythe, hitting the latter’s neck, thereby
inflicting the injury described below, to wit:
.hacking wound left lateral aspect neck;
and
.incised wound left hand dorsal aspect
thus performing all the acts of
exe[cu]tion which would produce the crime
of homicide as a consequence, but
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason
of some cause or causes independent of the
will of the accused, that is the timely and
able intervention of the medical attendance
rendered to the said victim.
Contrary to Article 249 in relation to 250
of the RPC.8
After the Information was filed, the

petitioner remained at large and was only
arrested by agents of the National Bureau
of Investigation on October 7, 2002.9
_______________
6 Id., at p. 81.
7 Original Records, pp. 1-2.
8 Id., at p. 1.
9 Id., at p. 10.
785
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 785

Abella vs. People
During the arraignment, the petitioner

pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
Pre-trial and trial thus proceeded.
The Prosecution offered the testimonies
of: (a) Benigno;10 (b) Amelita Abella11
(Amelita), Benigno’s wife; (c) Alejandro
Tayrus12 (Alejandro), with whom the
petitioner had a quarrel; and (d) Dr.
Roberto Ardiente13 (Dr. Ardiente), a
surgeon from J.R. Borja Memorial
Hospital, Cagayan de Oro City, who
rendered medical assistance to Benigno
after the latter was hacked by the
petitioner.
The Prosecution evidence established
that on September 6, 1998, at around 11:00
p.m., Benigno was watching television in
his house. A certain Roger Laranjo arrived
and asked Benigno to pacify the petitioner,
who was stirring trouble in a nearby store.
Benigno and Amelita found the petitioner
fighting with Alejandro and a certain
Dionisio Ybañes (Dionisio). Benigno was
able to convince the petitioner to go home.
Benigno and Amelita followed suit and

along the way, they dropped by the houses
of Alejandro and Dionisio to apologize for
the petitioner’s conduct.
Benigno and Amelita were in
Alejandro’s house when the petitioner
arrived bringing with him two scythes, one
in each of his hands. Benigno instructed
Alejandro and Dionisio to run away and
the latter two complied. The petitioner
wanted to enter Alejandro’s house, but
Benigno blocked his way and asked him
not to proceed. The petitioner then pointed
the scythe, which he held in his left hand,
in the direction of Benigno’s stomach,
while the scythe in the right hand was
used to hack the latter’s neck once.14
Benigno fell to the ground and was
immediately taken to the hospital15 while
the petitioner
_______________
10 TSN, February 20, 2003, pp. 2-20.
11 TSN, January 23, 2003, pp. 2-21.
12 Id., at pp. 21-35.
13 TSN, May 12, 2003, pp. 3-12.
14 TSN, January 23, 2003, pp. 9, 17.
15 Id., at pp. 13-14.
786

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
ran to chase Alejandro.16 Benigno incurred

an expense of more than P10,000.00 for
hospitalization, but lost the receipts of his
bills.17 He further claimed that after the
hacking incident, he could no longer move
his left hand and was thus deprived of his
capacity to earn a living as a carpenter.18
Dr. Ardiente testified that Benigno
sustained: (a) a “hacking wound left lateral
aspect neck 11 cm”; and (b) an “incised
wound left hand dorsal aspect 4 cm”.19
Benigno was initially confined in the
hospital on September 6, 1998 and was
discharged on September 23, 1998.20 From
Dr. Ardiente’s recollection, since the scythe
used in the hacking was not sterile,
complications and infections could have
developed from the big and open wounds
sustained by Benigno, but fortunately did
not.21
The defense offered the testimonies of:
(a) the petitioner;22 (b) Fernando
Fernandez23 (Fernando), a friend of the
petitioner; and (c) Urbano Cabag24
(Urbano).
The petitioner relied on denial and alibi
as defenses. He claimed that from
September 2, 1998 to October 2002, he and
his family resided in Buenavista, Agusan
del Norte. Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de
Oro City, where the hacking incident
occurred, is about four (4) hours drive
away.
Fernando testified that on September 6,
1998, he saw the petitioner gathering
woods to make a hut.25 Later in the eve-
_______________
16 Id., at pp. 17-18.
17 CA Rollo, p. 33.
18 Id.
19 TSN, May 12, 2003, p. 7; see also Medical
Certificate and Clinical Cover Sheet, Original
Records, pp. 69-70.
20 Original Records, p. 70; TSN, May 12, 2003, p.
9.
21 TSN, May 12, 2003, pp. 9-11.
22 TSN, April 26, 2004, pp. 1-26.
23 TSN, January 22, 2004, pp. 1-32.
24 TSN, October 27, 2004, pp. 1-27.
25 TSN, January 22, 2004, p. 13.
787
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 787

Abella vs. People
ning, at around 5:00 p.m., Urbano spotted

the petitioner drinking tuba in the store of
Clarita Perpetua.26
The RTC Ruling
On July 13, 2006, the RTC convicted the
petitioner of the crime charged. The fallo of
the Judgment27 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing

and finding the evidence presented by the
prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of
the [petitioner] beyond reasonable doubt,
judgment is rendered finding [petitioner]
Fe Abella GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide
as defined and penalized by Article 249 in

relation to Article 50 and Art. 6 of the
Revised Penal Code. Accordingly,
[petitioner] Fe Abella is hereby sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Six (6)
years and One (1) day to Eight (8) years of
prision mayor as minimum to Ten (10)
years and One (1) day to Twelve (12) years
of prision mayor as maximum; to indemnify
offended-party complainant Benigno Abella
the sum of Ten Thousand ([P]10,000.00)
Pesos for the medical expenses incurred; to
pay the sum of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND ([P]100,000.00) PESOS as
consequential damages and to pay the
costs.
SO ORDERED.28
The RTC found the petitioner’s defenses

of alibi and denial as weak. No
disinterested witnesses were presented to
corroborate the petitioner’s claim that he
was nowhere at the scene of the hacking
incident on September 6, 1998. Fernando
and Urbano’s testimonies were riddled
with inconsistencies. The RTC accorded
more credence to the averments of the
prosecution witnesses, who, without any ill
motives to testify
_______________
26 TSN, October 27, 2004, pp. 5-6.
27 CA Rollo, pp. 31-43.
28 Id., at p. 43.
788

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
against the petitioner, positively,

categorically and consistently pointed at
the latter as the perpetrator of the crime.
Besides, medical records show that
Benigno sustained a wound in his neck and
his scar was visible when he testified
during the trial.
The RTC awarded P10,000.00 as actual
damages to Benigno for the medical
expenses he incurred despite the
prosecution’s failure to offer receipts as
evidence. The petitioner was likewise
ordered to pay P100,000.00 as
consequential damages, but the RTC did
not explicitly lay down the basis for the
award.
The petitioner then filed an appeal29
before the CA primarily anchored on the
claim that the prosecution failed to prove
by clear and convincing evidence the
existence of intent to kill which
accompanied the single hacking blow made
on Benigno’s neck. The petitioner argued
that the hacking was merely accidental
especially since he had no motive
whatsoever which could have impelled him
to hurt Benigno, and that the infliction of
merely one wound negates intent to kill.
The CA Ruling
On October 26, 2010, the CA rendered
the herein assailed Decision30 affirming
the petitioner’s conviction for the crime of

frustrated homicide ratiocinating that:
Intent to kill may be proved by evidence

of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of
weapons used in the commission of the
crime; (c) the nature and number of
wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the
manner the crime was committed; and (e)
the words uttered by the offender at the
time the injuries are inflicted by him on the
victim.
_______________
29 Id., at pp. 19-30.
30 Id., at pp. 74-82.
789
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 789

Abella vs. People
Here, the intent to kill was sufficiently

proven by the Prosecution. The [petitioner]
attacked [Benigno] with deadly weapons,
two scythes. [The petitioner’s] blow was
directed to the neck of Benigno. The attack
on the unarmed and unsuspecting Benigno
was swift and sudden. The latter had no
means, and no time, to defend himself.
Dr. Roberto Ardiente, Jr., who attended
and issued the Medical Certificate, testified
that Benigno suffered from a hack wound
on the left neck, and an incised wound on
the left hand palm. He said that the
wounds might have been caused by a
sharp, pointed and sharp-edged

instrument, and may have resulted to
death without proper medical attendance.
Benigno was hospitalized for about a month
because of the injuries. The location of the
wound (on the neck) shows the nature and
seriousness of the wound suffered by
Benigno. It would have caused his death,
had it not been for the timely intervention
of medical science.31 (Citations omitted and
emphasis supplied)
However, the CA modified the sentence

to “imprisonment of six (6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years of prision
correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor in its
medium period, as maximum.”32 The CA
explained that:
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code

provides that the penalty for the crime of
consummated homicide is reclusion
temporal, or twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to twenty (20) years. Under Article 50
of the same Code, the penalty for a
frustrated crime is one degree lower than
that prescribed by law. Thus, frustrated
homicide is punishable by prision mayor, or
six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, absent any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances, the maximum
of the indeterminate penalty
_______________
31 Id., at pp. 79-80.

32 Id., at p. 81.
790

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
should be taken from the medium period of

prision mayor. To determine the minimum
of the indeterminate penalty, prision mayor
should be reduced by one degree, which is
prision correccional, with a range of six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years. The
minimum of the indeterminate penalty may
be taken from the full range of prision
correccional.33 (Citation omitted)
The CA also deleted the RTC’s order for

the payment of actual and consequential
damages as there were no competent
proofs to justify the awards. The CA
instead ruled that Benigno is entitled to
P30,000.00 as moral damages and
P10,000.00 as temperate damages,34 the
latter being awarded when some pecuniary
loss has been incurred, but the amount
cannot be proven with certainty.35
Issue
Hence, the instant Petition for Review
on Certiorari36 anchored on the issue of
whether or not the RTC and the CA erred
in rendering judgments which are not in
accordance with law and applicable
jurisprudence and which if not corrected,
will cause grave injustice and irreparable

damage to the petitioner.37
In support thereof, the petitioner avers
that the courts a quo failed to appreciate
relevant facts, which if considered, would
justify either his acquittal or the
downgrading of his conviction to less
serious physical injuries. The petitioner
points out that after the single hacking
blow was delivered, he ran after Alejandro
and Dionisio leaving Benigno behind. Had
there been an intent to kill on his part, the
petitioner
_______________
33 Id., at p. 80.
34 Id., at p. 81.
35 Id., citing Premiere Development Bank v. Court
of Appeals, 471 Phil. 704, 719; 427 SCRA 686, 699
(2004).
36 Rollo, pp. 11-31.
37 Id., at p. 19.
791
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 791

Abella vs. People
could have inflicted more wounds since at

that time, he had two scythes in his hands.
Further, the CA erred in finding that the
hacking blow was sudden and unexpected,
providing Benigno with no opportunity to
defend himself. Benigno saw the petitioner
arriving with weapons on hand. Benigno
could not have been unaware of the danger

facing him, but he knew that the petitioner
had no intent to hurt him. Benigno thus
approached the petitioner, but in the
process, the former was accidentally hit
with the latter’s scythe.
The petitioner also cites Pentecostes, Jr.
v. People38 where this Court found the
downgrading of a conviction from
attempted murder to physical injuries as
proper considering that homicidal intent
was absent when the accused shot the
victim once and did not hit a vital part of
the latter’s body.39
Further, as per Dr. Ardiente’s
testimony, no complications resulted from
Benigno’s hacking wound in the neck and
incised wound in the hand. Such being the
case, death could not have resulted. The
neck wound was not “so extensive because
it [did] not involve [a] big blood vessel on
its vital structure” while the incised wound
in the hand, which only required cleansing
and suturing, merely left a slight
scarring.40 Besides, Benigno was only
confined for seventeen (17) days at the
hospital and the injuries he sustained were
in the nature of less serious ones.
In its Comment,41 the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) seeks the
dismissal of the instant petition. The OSG
stresses that the petitioner raises factual
issues, which call for a re-calibration of
evidence, hence, outside the ambit of a
petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
Moreover, the petitioner’s argument

that the development of infections or
complications on the wounds is a necessary
_______________
38 G.R. No. 167766, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 504.
39 Id., at pp. 516-517.
40 Rollo, pp. 25-27.
41 CA Rollo, pp. 129-150.
792

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
factor to determine the crime committed is

specious. The petitioner’s intent to kill
Benigno can be clearly inferred from the
nature of the weapon used, the extent of
injuries inflicted and the circumstances of
the aggression. Benigno could have died
had there been no timely medical
assistance rendered to him.
If it were the petitioner’s wish to merely
get Benigno out of the way to be able to
chase Alejandro and Dionisio, a kick, fist
blow, push, or the use of a less lethal
weapon directed against a non-vital part of
the body would have been sufficient.
However, the petitioner hacked Benigno’s
neck with an unsterile scythe, leaving
behind a big, open and gaping wound.
This Court’s Ruling
The instant petition raises factual

issues which are beyond the scope
of a petition filed under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
Century Iron Works, Inc. and Benito
Chua v. Eleto B. Bañas42 is instructive
anent what is the subject of review in a
petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, viz.:
A petition for review on certiorari under

Rule 45 is an appeal from a ruling of a
lower tribunal on pure questions of law. It
is only in exceptional circumstances that
we admit and review questions of fact.
A question of law arises when there is
doubt as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts, while there is a question of
fact when the doubt arises as to the truth
or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question
to be one of law, the question must not
involve an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the
litigants or any of them. The resolution of
the issue must rest
_______________
42 G.R. No. 184116, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 157.
793
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 793

Abella vs. People
solely on what the law provides on the

given set of circumstances. Once it is clear
that the issue invites a review of the

evidence presented, the question posed is
one of fact.43 (Citations omitted)
In the case at bar, the challenge is

essentially posed against the findings of
the courts a quo that the petitioner had a
homicidal intent when he hacked Benigno’s
neck with a scythe and that the wounds
the latter sustained could have caused his
death had there been no prompt medical
intervention. These questions are patently
factual in nature requiring no less than a
re-calibration of the contending parties’
evidence.
It is settled that the general rule
enunciated in Century Iron Works, Inc. and
Benito Chua admits of exceptions, among
which is, “when the judgment of the CA is
premised on a misapprehension of facts or
a failure to notice certain relevant facts
that would otherwise justify a different
conclusion x x x.”44 However, the factual
backdrop and circumstances surrounding
the instant petition do not add up to
qualify the case as falling within the
exceptions.
Even if this Court were to be
exceptionally liberal and allow a
review of factual issues, still, the
instant petition is susceptible to
denial.
To successfully prosecute the crime of
homicide, the following elements must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a
person was killed; (2) that the accused
killed that person without any justifying

circumstance; (3) that the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed; and
(4) that the
_______________
43 Id.
44 Rollo, p. 20, citing Fuentes v. Court of Appeals,
335 Phil. 1163, 1168; 268 SCRA 703, 709 (1997).
794

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
killing was not attended by any of the

qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover,
the offender is said to have performed all
the acts of execution if the wound inflicted
on the victim is mortal and could cause the
death of the victim without medical
intervention or attendance.45
In cases of frustrated homicide, the
main element is the accused’s intent to
take his victim’s life. The prosecution has
to prove this clearly and convincingly to
exclude every possible doubt regarding
homicidal intent. And the intent to kill is
often inferred from, among other things,
the means the offender used and the
nature, location, and number of wounds he
inflicted on his victim.46
The petitioner now wants to impress

upon this Court that he had no motive to
attack, much less kill Benigno. The
petitioner likewise invokes the doctrine in
Pentecostes, Jr.47 to argue that homicidal
intent is absent in a case where the
accused shot the victim only once when
there was an opportunity to do otherwise.
The petitioner belabors his claim that had
he intended to kill Benigno, he could have
repeatedly hacked him to ensure the
latter’s death, and not leave right after the
blow to chase Alejandro instead.
The analogy is flawed.
In Pentecostes, Jr., the victim was shot
only once in the arm, a non vital part of the
body. The attending physician certified
that the injury would require medical
attendance for
_______________
45 People v. Badriago, G.R. No. 183566, May 8,
2009, 587 SCRA 820, 832, citing SPO1 Nerpio v.
People, 555 Phil. 87, 94; 528 SCRA 93, 100 (2007);
People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, February 26,
2008, 546 SCRA 671, 695.
46 Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December
13, 2011, 662 SCRA 266, 275-276, citing People v.
Pagador, 409 Phil. 338, 351; 357 SCRA 299, 307
(2001); Rivera v. People, 515 Phil. 824, 832; 480 SCRA
188, 197 (2006).
47 Supra note 38.
795
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 795

Abella vs. People
ten days, but the victim was in fact

promptly discharged from the hospital the
following day.
In Benigno’s case, he sustained an 11-
centimeter long hacking wound in the neck
and a 4-cm long incised wound in his left
hand caused by the unsterile scythe used
by the petitioner. Dr. Ardiente testified
that “it is possible to have complications
[resulting from these] injuries because the
wounds [were] extensive and [they were]
big and [they were open wounds], so there
is a possibility of infection[s] [resulting
from these] kind[s] of wounds, and the
instrument used [was] not [a] sterile
instrument contaminated with other
thing[s].”48 No complications developed
from Benigno’s wounds which could have
caused his death, but he was confined in
the hospital for a period of 17 days from
September 6, 1998 to September 23, 1998.
From the foregoing, this Court
concludes and thus agrees with the CA
that the use of a scythe against Benigno’s
neck was determinative of the petitioner’s
homicidal intent when the hacking blow
was delivered. It does not require
imagination to figure out that a single
hacking blow in the neck with the use of a
scythe could be enough to decapitate a
person and leave him dead. While no
complications actually developed from the
gaping wounds in Benigno’s neck and left

hand, it perplexes logic to conclude that
the injuries he sustained were potentially
not fatal considering the period of his
confinement in the hospital. A mere
grazing injury would have necessitated a
lesser degree of medical attention.
This Court likewise finds wanting in
merit the petitioner’s claim that an intent
to kill is negated by the fact that he
pursued Alejandro instead and refrained
from further hacking Benigno. What could
have been a fatal blow was already
delivered and there was no more
desistance to speak of. Benigno did not die
from the hacking incident by reason of a
timely
_______________
48 TSN, May 12, 2003, p. 9.
796

ANNOTATED
Abella vs. People
medical intervention provided to him,

which is a cause independent of the
petitioner’s will.
All told, this Court finds no reversible
error committed by the CA in affirming the
RTC’s conviction of the petitioner of the
crime charged.
The Court modifies the award

of damages.
As to the civil liability of the petitioner,
the CA was correct in deleting the payment
of the consequential damages awarded by
the trial court in the absence of proof
thereof. Where the amount of actual
damages cannot be determined because of
the absence of supporting receipts but
entitlement is shown by the facts of the
case, temperate damages may be
awarded.49 In the instant case, Benigno
certainly suffered injuries, was actually
hospitalized and underwent medical
treatment. Considering the nature of his
injuries, it is prudent to award temperate
damages in the amount of P25,000.00, in
lieu of actual damages.50
Furthermore, we find that Benigno is
entitled to moral damages in the amount of
P25,000.00.51 There is sufficient basis to
award moral damages as ordinary human
experience
_______________
49 Esqueda v. People, G.R. No. 170222, June 18,
2009, 589 SCRA 489, 512-513; Article 2224 of the
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES provides: “Temperate or
moderate damages, which are more than nominal but
less than compensatory damages, may be recovered
when the Court finds that some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature
of the case, be proved with certainty.”
50 Esqueda v. People, id.; Serrano v. People, G.R.
No. 175023, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 322, 341.
51 People of the Philippines v. Rodel Lanuza y

Bagaoisan, G.R. No. 188562, August 17, 2011, 656
SCRA 293; People of the Philippines v. Jesus
Domingo, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009 580 SCRA
436.
797
VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 797

Abella vs. People
and common sense dictate that such

wounds inflicted on Benigno would
naturally cause physical suffering, fright,
serious anxiety, moral shock, and similar
injury.52
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
DENIED. The Decision and Resolution,
dated October 26, 2010 and August 11,
2011, respectively, of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR No. 00336-MIN are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
The petitioner, Fe Abella y Perpetua is
ORDERED TO PAY the offended party
moral damages in the amount of
P25,000.00 and temperate damages in the
amount of P25,000.00. Further, the
monetary awards for damages shall be
subject to interest at the legal rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of
finality of this Decision until fully paid.53
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-

De Castro, Bersamin and Leonen,** JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution

affirmed with modifications.
Notes.―In the absence of any

circumstance which would qualify the
victim’s killing to murder, we hold that the
appellant should be held liable only for the
crime of homicide. (People vs. Algarme, 578
SCRA 601 [2009])
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, the imposable penalty for one found
guilty of Homicide is reclusion temporal,
whose duration is from twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
(People vs. Isla, 686 SCRA 267 [2012])
――o0o――
_______________
52 Esqueda v. People, supra note 49, at p. 513.
53 Please see People of the Philippines v. Jonathan
“Uto” Veloso y Rama, G.R. No. 188849, February 13,
2013, 690 SCRA 586.
** Acting member per Special Order No. 1545
(Revised) dated September 16, 2013.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

FE ABELLA y PERPETUA, Petitioner, vs. People OF THE Philippines, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FE ABELLA y PERPETUA, Petitioner, vs. People OF THE Philippines, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FE ABELLA y PERPETUA, Petitioner, vs. People OF THE Philippines, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

G.R. No. 198400. October 7, 2013.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals;

the issue invites a review of the evidence

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Abella vs. People

accused killed that person without any

regarding homicidal intent.―In cases of

PETITION for review on certiorari of the

Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.

VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 783

The Solicitor General for respondent.

minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1)

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

P30,000.00 as moral damages and

On October 7, 1998, the petitioner, who

That on or about September 6, 1998, at

After the Information was filed, the

VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 785

During the arraignment, the petitioner

Benigno and Amelita followed suit and

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ran to chase Alejandro.16 Benigno incurred

VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 787

ning, at around 5:00 p.m., Urbano spotted

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing

as defined and penalized by Article 249 in

The RTC found the petitioner’s defenses

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

against the petitioner, positively,

the petitioner’s conviction for the crime of

Intent to kill may be proved by evidence

VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 789

Here, the intent to kill was sufficiently

sharp, pointed and sharp-edged

However, the CA modified the sentence

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code

31 Id., at pp. 79-80.

790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

should be taken from the medium period of

The CA also deleted the RTC’s order for

will cause grave injustice and irreparable

VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 791

could have inflicted more wounds since at

could not have been unaware of the danger

Moreover, the petitioner’s argument

792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

factor to determine the crime committed is

The instant petition raises factual

A petition for review on certiorari under

VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 793

solely on what the law provides on the

that the issue invites a review of the

In the case at bar, the challenge is

killed that person without any justifying

794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

killing was not attended by any of the

The petitioner now wants to impress

VOL. 706, OCTOBER 7, 2013 795