ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144020.February 26, 2001]

PAPAG vs. PEOPLE

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 26 2001.

G.R. No. 144020(Christopher Papag vs. People of the Philippines).--On March 13, 1997, the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 63, La Trinidad, Benguet found herein petitioner, Christopher Papag guilty of Frustrated Homicide, imposing upon him the intermediate sentence of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prison correccional as minimum to 8 years of prison mayor as maximum.The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on March 22, 2000; hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari where petitioner raises the following issues:

1). THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES PRESENTED AS FORMING PART OF THE RES GESTAE;

2). THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE VITAL TESTIMONY OF JOSE MALICDAN AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONIES OF THE OTHER DEFENSE WITNESSES WHICH IF CONSIDERED WOULD CREATE A DOUBT AS TO THE CULPABILITY OF THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED.

The criminal case arose when on April 16, 1994, a rumble broke out at Ucab, Itogon, Benguet involving the group of the accused (Christopher Papag, Rudy Suwasian, George Bawayan and Juan Lay-os) and the group of the victim (Harold Perez).As a result of the rumble, Harold Perez was stabbed on the stomach which would have been fatal, if not for the timely medical attention given to him.

The prosecution pointed at the petitioner as the person responsible for the crime.

Petitioner, on the other hand, alleged that there is reasonable doubt as to his culpability considering that, among others:

1) his companion, Rudy Suwasian, made a spontaneous remark after the rumble that he unintentionally stabbed somebody and yet the courts did not admit this statement as part of res gestae.

2) The initial investigation of the police revealed that Rudy Suwasian admitted that he was the one who stabbed Harold Perez but the blame was put on the petitioner since Rudy Suwasian was merely a visitor and had no means to pay for the medical bills of the victim.

3) Jose Malicdan (from the rival group) initially made a statement (which was, however, later on recanted) that it was the petitioner whom he fought with during the rumble.Petitioner allegedly hit him with a stone so he chased him back.If petitioner did have a knife with him, he would have stabbed Juan Malicdan, too.It was impossible for him to have allegedly stabbed the victim and at the same time, to have fought with Jose Malicdan.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment pursuant to our Resolution dated September 18, 2000.It recommended the denial of the petition.

The petition is devoid of merit.

Factual issues are involved here.The respondent court did not err in affirming the trial court's conviction for frustrated homicide.Harold Perez positively testified that he saw petitioner rush towards him with a knife and stab him once in the stomach.The contention that there is allegedly testimonial and documentary evidence pointing to Rudy Suwasian as the person responsible for the injury sustained by Harold Perez can not be given much weight.It is inadmissible for being hearsay, nor can his statement be covered by Section 38, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as a declaration against interest.As the respondent court ruled:

We cannot accept the alleged confession given by Rudy Suwasian to CHRISTOPHER, Charles Bawayan, Juan Lay-os, and PO2 Binggala, that he was the one who had stabbed HAROLD because, as in the Fuentes, Jr. case, the alleged declarant was not shown to be unavailable to testify.From all indications, Rudy Suwasian is merely into hiding and is neither dead, mentally incapacitated nor physically incompetent.Hence, his absence from the jurisdiction of the trial court does not make him ipso facto unavailable in contemplation of the provision of Sec. 38. ¹ Rollo , p. 33.

Moreover, petitioner's denial can not prevail over the positive identification of the complaining witness, Harold Perez.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANIO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE