ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139440. September 6, 1999]

ANASTACIO ALCONES vs. REP. OF THE PHILS.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 6 1999.

G.R. No. 139440 (Anastacio Alcones vs. Republic of the Philippines.)

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure praying for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto that of the regional trial court.

The case stemmed from a stabbing incident in Cabuyao, Laguna on the evening of December 27, 1992 involving petitioner Anastacio R. Alcones, Fernando del Mundo, and Roberto Barrio. Del Mundo and Barrio were both charged with frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. 8073 for allegedly attacking petitioner Alcones. Barrio was arraigned but del Mundo requested for a reinvestigation of the case which resulted in his (del Mundo's) filing a criminal case (No. 8557) for frustrated homicide against Alcones for allegedly attacking him (del Mundo).

The two criminal case were tried jointly and on October 20, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna (Branch 31), rendered judgment in Criminal Case No. 8073 acquitting del Mundo and Barrio for insufficiency of evidence; and finding petitioner Alcones guilty in Criminal Case No. 8557.

Alcones appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. His motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this appeal.

The petition raises questions of facts pertaining to the lower court's findings of unlawful aggression on the part of del Mundo; that petitioner inflicted injury on himself to escape liability; and that both per and del Mundo sustained stab wounds.

We have held time and again that the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding on the Supreme Court (Willex Plastic Industries Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 478). The reason for this rule is that the court a quo had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified before it (People vs. Cua, 256 SCRA 539).

Not only is the petition substantially flawed, it likewise lacks proof of service which further warrants its outright denial.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE