View full case

CARLOS JAY ADLAWAN v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Carlos Jay Adlawan, the petitioner in this case, was charged with Frustrated Murder and Attempted Robbery. Evidence during the trial showed that the petitioner was the child from Alfonso V. Adlawan's first marriage, while the private complainant, Georgia R. Adlawan, was Alfonso's second wife and the petitioner's stepmother. The petitioner was unemployed and had undergone leg surgery, while Georgia was engaged in the construction business. On February 18, 2004, Georgia overheard the petitioner talking with the houseboy, which led to an altercation where the petitioner demanded to know where the money was. Georgia informed him that the money was used for Alfonso's hospital bills. The petitioner attacked Georgia with a katana, hitting her on the neck and stomach. Georgia managed to evade some of the blows, but the petitioner continued his assault. In self-defense, Georgia kicked the petitioner's leg and grabbed and squeezed his sex organ, causing the petitioner to fall. Georgia sought medical treatment for her injuries, which included lacerations and contusions. During the trial, the defense did not present the petitioner as a witness but instead presented the houseboy to testify about the events on the day of the incident.

Carlos Jay Adlawan was convicted of frustrated homicide, but acquitted of attempted robbery by the trial court. The court found that the petitioner repeatedly attacked Georgia but did not succeed in completing the crime of homicide due to timely medical intervention. The court also considered aggravating circumstances such as abuse of superior strength and disregard of respect due to the victim's age, sex, and being the petitioner's stepmother. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay indemnity to the victim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for frustrated homicide but modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in considering certain aggravating circumstances because they were not alleged in the information against the petitioner. The Court of Appeals modified the penalty but affirmed the conviction in all other aspects.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a joint motion to dismiss and admit the victim's affidavit of recantation and desistance. The victim admitted to fabricating the accusations against the petitioner and claimed that her injuries were due to accidents and not caused by the petitioner. However, the Court of Appeals denied both motions, stating that an affidavit of desistance alone cannot be a ground for dismissal.

Unsatisfied with the Court of Appeals' decision, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was grave failure of appellate review by the Court of Appeals, rendering its decision void.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it disregarded the private complainant's affidavit of recantation and desistance and declared that it is not a ground for the dismissal of an action once it has been instituted in court.

  3. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established the intent to kill and the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim.

  4. Whether the inadmissibility of the weapon used in the crime affects the conviction for frustrated homicide.

  5. Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony undermine her credibility.

  6. Whether the affidavit of desistance and recantation by the victim should have resulted in the dismissal of the case.

  7. Whether the testimony of the witness positively identifying the petitioner as the person who hacked her is credible.

  8. Whether the affidavit of recantation and desistance executed by the witness is reliable.

RULING:

  1. The petition fails as the issues raised involve questions of fact which are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The first assignment of error involves questions pertaining to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the relevance and admissibility of the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, which are factual questions. The second assignment of error would entail a review of the evidence concerning the injuries sustained by the private complainant, which is also a question of fact. The Court does not sit as an arbiter of facts in a petition for review on certiorari, and such factual findings can only be questioned under exceptional circumstances which are not present in this case. Furthermore, even assuming exceptional circumstances exist, the petition would still fail for being unmeritorious. The Court finds that there was no failure of appellate review by the Court of Appeals, and the appellate court did not err in concurring with the trial court's factual findings resulting in the petitioner's conviction for frustrated homicide. The Court is satisfied that the appellate court complied with the requirements of stating the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which its decision is based.

  2. The appellate court did not err in affirming the trial court's findings of intent to kill and the seriousness of the victim's injuries. The testimonies of the victim and an eyewitness, as well as the medical evidence presented, sufficiently established the intent and the severity of the wounds.

  3. The inadmissibility of the weapon used in the crime does not affect the conviction for frustrated homicide. The identification of the accused and the supporting evidence, such as the photographs of the victim's wounds and the medical certificate, were considered by the court as sufficient proof.

  4. The alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony were deemed minor and did not undermine her overall credibility as a witness.

  5. The affidavit of desistance and recantation by the victim does not automatically result in the dismissal of the case. There must be other circumstances that, when coupled with the retraction, raise doubts about the truth of the original testimony. In this case, the court found credible the original testimonies given by the victim and considered the affidavit of desistance unreliable.

  6. The Court finds the testimony of the witness credible. The witness positively identified the petitioner as the person who hacked her several times. She remained steadfast in her testimony and her narration of the incident was consistent. The credibility of the witness's testimony is clear.

  7. The affidavit of recantation and desistance executed by the witness is unreliable. It was executed after the petitioner had already been convicted by the trial and appellate courts. Additionally, the explanation in the affidavit regarding the cause of the witness's injuries defies common sense. The photographs and medical certificate presented showed wounds inconsistent with injuries sustained from broken glass. Thus, the affidavit does not create doubt as to the truth of the testimony given by the witness in open court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for review on certiorari filed with the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law. Questions of fact are not properly reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari. (Doctrine of Questions of Law)

  • The Court does not sit as an arbiter of facts in a petition for review on certiorari. Factual findings can only be questioned under exceptional circumstances. (Doctrine of Factual Findings)

  • Appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when the issue involves the credibility of witnesses, unless the lower court's conclusions are unsupported by evidence or it overlooked crucial facts.

  • In cases of frustrated homicide, intent to kill may be inferred from the means used and the nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted.

  • The non-identification or non-presentation of the weapon used does not necessarily negate the accused's guilt when positive identification has been made by the victim or other witnesses.

  • Inconsistencies on minor details do not affect the credibility of a witness.

  • Retractions or affidavits of desistance are generally looked upon with disfavor and must be scrutinized carefully. They can only affect the original testimony if there are special circumstances that raise doubts about its truthfulness. Affidavits of desistance made after the conviction of the accused are considered unreliable.

  • The credibility of a witness is determined by the court based on various factors such as clarity, candor, and consistency in their testimony.

  • Affidavits executed after conviction may be viewed with caution as they may be influenced by factors such as reconciliation between parties and no longer harboring ill feelings towards each other.

  • The court may consider other evidence, such as photographs and medical certificates, to assess the truthfulness of the statements made in an affidavit.