March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 176126 : March 07, 2012]
OSMUND DECANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 176126 (Osmund Decano v. People of the Philippines). - Assailed before this Court is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated August 18, 2006, which affirmed with modification the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)[3] finding petitioner Osmund Decano guilty of the crime of Frustrated Homicide instead of Frustrated Murder and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years of prision mayor, as maximum. Also assailed is the Resolution[4] dated November 2, 2006, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The prosecution established the following facts:
Sometime in October 2002, at 8 o'clock in the evening, while the victim Rosauro Talamillo (Talamillo) was at a store, Osmund Decano and Ronald Aguilar (Aguilar) invited him to drink with them. Talamillo agreed and the three drank with each other for a while, after which petitioner and Aguilar left, but the two came back and hit him with a bottle. Talamillo inquired why the petitioner hit him, but he did not respond. Talamillo then ran away and went home. Later that night, Talamillo and his family were about to eat dinner. While Talamillo was scooping rice, petitioner and Aguilar, wielding bladed weapons, barged into their house and assaulted the hapless victim and inflicted upon Talamillo several hack and stab wounds on different parts of his body. Talamillo was later rushed to the hospital where he received timely medical treatment, which eventually saved his life. Petitioner and Aguilar were later charged in an Information[5] with the crime of Frustrated Murder under Article 248, in relation to Articles 5 and 50 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Aguilar was at-large, only petitioner was convicted by the RTC for the crime charged against him.
Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the CA. Meanwhile, Aguilar was arrested and eventually pleaded guilty and was convicted with the lesser offense of attempted homicide.
On August 18, 2006, the CA, after finding petitioner's appeal partly meritorious, rendered a Decision affirming with modification the decision of the RTC. The CA found petitioner guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide instead of frustrated murder.
The CA opined that the prosecution sufficiently established that petitioner and Aguilar had assaulted the victim with the intention to kill the latter. Petitioner was positively identified by the victim and his witness. Also, contrary to petitioner's claim, conspiracy between him and Aguilar was adequately proven. However, in convicting the petitioner to a lesser offense, the CA ratiocinated that although the wounds sustained by the victim were sufficient to cause his death, making the offense not merely attempted but frustrated, nevertheless, the Information lacked the factual averments to sustain a finding that treachery attended the commission of the crime. Hence, the CA found petitioner liable only for the crime of frustrated homicide.
Petitioner now comes before this Court assailing his conviction and mainly raises the same arguments he pleaded before the CA.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the appeal, the Court resolves to deny the same for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the wisdom of the challenged decision.cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated August 18, 2006 and the Resolution dated November 2, 2006 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Magdangal M. De Leon, concurring, and Associates Justice Renato C. Dacudao and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, dissenting; CA rollo, pp. 92-127.[2] CA rollo, pp. 50-55.
[3] Dagupan City, Branch 44.
[4] Rollo, pp. 42-43.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 4-5.