View full case

FE ABELLA Y PERPETUA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner, Fe Abella, was convicted by the RTC of Misamis Oriental for the crime of frustrated homicide against his younger brother. The petitioner's defenses of alibi and denial were considered weak and the court gave more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The RTC sentenced the petitioner to a penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 8 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 10 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as maximum. The RTC also awarded P10,000.00 as actual damages for medical expenses and P100,000.00 as consequential damages, but did not specify the basis for the latter. The petitioner appealed the decision to the CA, claiming that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill. The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum. The CA also ordered the petitioner to pay P30,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as temperate damages, deleting the RTC's award for actual damages and consequential damages. The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to challenge the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the lower courts erred in rendering judgments that are not in accordance with law and applicable jurisprudence.

  2. Whether the lower courts failed to appreciate relevant facts that would justify the petitioner's acquittal or the downgrading of his conviction.

  3. The main issue in this case is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the petitioner's homicidal intent and therefore his guilt for the crime of homicide. Another issue is whether the petitioner's actions after the initial blow negate his intent to kill.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) was correct in deleting the payment of consequential damages awarded by the trial court due to lack of proof.

  5. Whether Benigno is entitled to temperate damages and the appropriate amount to be awarded.

  6. Whether Benigno is entitled to moral damages and the appropriate amount to be awarded.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition raises factual issues that are beyond the scope of a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated the principle that in a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised, and factual findings of the lower courts are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.

  2. The Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals (CA) that the evidence presented is sufficient to establish the petitioner's homicidal intent. The use of a scythe to deliver a hacking blow to the victim's neck is indicative of such intent. The Court also dismisses the petitioner's claim that his pursuit of another person and refraining from further attacking the victim negates his intent to kill. The victim did not die as a result of the attack due to timely medical intervention, which is independent of the petitioner's will.

  3. The CA was correct in deleting the payment of consequential damages awarded by the trial court. In the absence of proof thereof, the amount of actual damages cannot be determined. However, temperate damages may be awarded when entitlement is proven but the amount of actual damages cannot be determined. Hence, the court awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages.

  4. Benigno is entitled to temperate damages. He suffered injuries, was hospitalized, and underwent medical treatment. Considering the nature of his injuries, it is prudent to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.

  5. Benigno is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00. The court found sufficient basis to award moral damages since the wounds inflicted on Benigno would naturally cause physical suffering, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, and similar injury.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.

  • Factual findings of the lower courts are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.

  • In cases of homicide, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to kill. Intent to kill can be inferred from the means used and the nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted.

  • Frustrated homicide requires clear and convincing evidence of the accused's intent to take the victim's life.

  • The presence of homicidal intent is determined based on the evidence presented, such as the weapon used and the severity of the injuries inflicted.

  • The fact that the victim did not die from the initial blow does not negate the accused's intent to kill. The victim's survival may be due to timely medical intervention, which is beyond the control of the accused.

  • In the absence of proof of consequential damages, the court may award temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.

  • Temperate damages may be awarded when entitlement is shown but the amount of actual damages cannot be determined.

  • Moral damages may be awarded when there is sufficient basis and common sense dictates that the inflicted wounds would cause physical suffering, fright, anxiety, moral shock, and similar injury.