ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 165820.� December 8, 2004]
MENDOZA vs. PEOPLE
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 8 2004 .
G.R. No. 165820 (Leonardo Mendoza vs. People of the Philippines.)
Petitioner assails the June 17, 2004 decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 24738, affirming the July 31, 2000 decision of the Regional Trial Court at Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 6, convicting him for the crime of frustrated homicide, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, accused Leonardo Mendoza having been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide is hereby sentenced, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor, and to indemnify complaining witness Diogenes Laguna the total amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00) as actual ad complementary damages. [2] cralaw
In an information dated November 23, 1992, petitioner Leonardo Mendoza, together with his brothers Joselito and Alberto likewise surnamed Mendoza, was charged with frustrated homicide for hacking one Diogenes Laguna in the head with a bolo.
On arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter.
On July 31, 2000, the trial court rendered its decision acquitting Joselito and Alberto for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner Leonardo was, however, found guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide.
The trial court viewed petitioner's theory of self-defense as incredible in the light of the testimonies of witnesses pointing at him as the perpetrator of the crime.
On May 2, 2001, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court erred in disregarding the presence of justifying circumstance of self defense in the commission of the crime and in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
On June 17, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered the above assailed decision [3] cralaw affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction with modification as to the penalty imposed, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (10) day of prision mayor as maximum. The appellant is directed to pay private complainant the amount of P25,000 as actual damages and P30,000 as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED.
Obviously dissatisfied, petitioner is now before this Court raising the same issues.
The petition is unavailing.
As aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, even if it were to be assumed, arguendo, that petitioner merely wrestled the bolo from his victim when the latter allegedly tried to strike him, self-defense could not be invoked because there was no more aggression to repel or to stop when he delivered the fatal blow. According to the eyewitnesses, petitioner hacked the victim three (3) times, and it was on the third time when he was able to fatally injure the victim on the left side of the latter's head. When petitioner got hold of the bolo, the victim was already unarmed and defenseless. Petitioner, therefore, had no more reason to hack him.
We thus find no ground to reverse or even modify the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Our reasons therefor are, as follows:
First. Like alibi, self-defense is a weak defense because it is easy to fabricate. When an accused interposes self-defense, he thereby admits having killed the victim. The burden of proof is shifted on him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the confluence of the essential requisites of a complete self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. For, even if the prosecution's evidence is weak, the same can no longer be disbelieved. Petitioner-appellant failed to discharge his burden.
Second. The trial court found the collective testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible, while those of the petitioner, incredible and barren of probative weight. The legal aphorism is that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight is given high respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. [4] cralaw We have meticulously reviewed the records and found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court.
Finally, the issues raised by the petitioner require the determination of factual matters which is beyond the province of this Court. It is settled that only questions of law are entertained in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. It is true that there are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and, (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. [5] cralaw Unfortunately, however, petitioner failed to show that any of the exceptions is present in the instant case to warrant a review of the findings of fact of the lower courts.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Amelita G. Tolentino of the Thirteenth Division.
[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 61.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 59-80.
[4] cralaw People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Cajurao, G.R. No. 122767, January 20, 2004.
[5] cralaw Emmanuel Samala, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 130826, February 17, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
