ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 132208. July 19, 2000]

MANUEL GUMARANG vs. PEOPLE

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 19 2000.

G.R. No. 132208 (Manuel Gumarang vs. People of the Philippines.)

Petitioner seeks a review by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari, of the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 24, 1997 in CA-G.R. CR No. 15879, which affirmed the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan in Criminal Case No.10-387 convicting petitioner of the charge of Homicide.

While petitioner denominates his petition as a special civil action under Rule 65, ¹ Petition, p. 1; Rollo, p. 3.in essence, it raises pure questions of fact, i.e.: 1.) whether or not the trial court committed error in finding petitioner as the aggressor; ² Petition, p.7; RolIo, p.9.2.) whether or not the trial court committed error in according credence to prosecution witness Vinagrera's testimony ³ Petition, p. 10; Rollo,, p. 12.; 3.) whether or not the wound sustained by the victim is the primary and immediate cause of his death; ⁴ Ibid.and 4.) whether or not the victim executed his police statement in contemplation of death; ⁵ Petition, p. 13; Rollo, p. 15.and 5.) whether or not the petitioner is the assailant. ⁶ Petition, p. 22; Rollo, p. 24.

To determine the validity of petitioner's assertions would entail a review and a re-evaluation of the evidence on record vis-�-vis the conclusions arrived at by the Court of Appeals; in effect a review of the judgment which cannot be done in a petition for certiorari.

Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and may not be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court except when the lower court and the Court of Appeals arrived at diverse factual findings. ⁷ Silverio vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 541 [1999] citing Yobido vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 1 [1997]. In the instant case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial court and, therefore, carry even more weight.

Moreover, there is no showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. ⁸ Alipoon vs. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 118 [1999] citing Sarao vs. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 247 [1997].

The pertinent portions of the assailed Decision read:

"Appellant insists that the lower court's decision was based mainly on the testimony of a drunk and shocked witness, Epifanio Vinagrera, Jr.

"From the records, We have no basis to conclude that witness Vinagrera, at the time of the incident, was indeed drunk and in a state of shock and, therefore, could not have observed what transpired. Thus, We are not prepared to conclude that the trial court erred on this point as claimed by appellant. It is basic that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is left largely to the trial court because of its opportunity, not available to the appellate court, to see the witnesses on the stand and determine their demeanor whether they are testifying truthfully or lying through their teeth. xxx Thus, the evaluation by the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses is well-nigh conclusive on this Court, barring arbitrariness in arriving at his conclusions. (People vs. Rivera, 242 SCRA 35)

"Also, We cannot go along with appellant's theory that the stab wound sustained by the deceased was not the immediate cause of his death. Appellant failed to dispute the testimony of Vinagrera that he saw the appellant stab the victim with a 'Batangas Knife' on the left side of his chest; and the ante-mortem statement of appellant quoted as follows: xxx

����������� xxx����� xxx����� xxx

"The Supreme Court, in People vs. Morin (241 SCRA 710) held that an ante mortem statement is an evidence of the highest order. At the threshold of death, all thoughts of fabricating lies are stilled. The utterance of a victim made immediately after sustaining serious injuries may be considered so-to-speak as pure emanations of the stabbing incident or the incident speaking through the victim.

"Appellant seems to blame the trial court for not finding that he acted in self defense. Significantly, he did not take the witness stand to testify that he killed the victim to defend himself. When one invokes self defense, he admits the killing. Yet, from the testimony of his witness Antonio Dolio, the appellant denies responsibility. Indeed, his invocation of both self-defense and denial is incongruous which grossly weakens his posture. And even if his only plea is self-defense, the same has to be set aside. xxx

"Here, there can be no unlawful aggression on account of the fact that appellant did not sustain a serious injury despite the fact that he was allegedly clubbed on the head by the victim, causing him to fall. In fact, the trial court found that appellant's wound on his head is only skin deep. We will no longer discuss the other elements of self-defense since it has been established there was lack of unlawful aggression and, therefore, there cannot be any self-defense, complete or incomplete.

"All told, We are in accord with the lower Court that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide." ⁹ Court of Appeals Decision, pp.7-11; Rollo, pp. 53-57 .

After a careful study and evaluation of the records of the case, we find no reversible error in the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE