Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 188551 February 27, 2013
EDMUNDO ESCAM!!A y "UGO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOP!E OF T#E P#!PPNES, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
SERENO, J.:
This is a Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari
#
dated $% &u'ust $%%(. It see)s a revie" of the #%
*une $%%( Resolution
$
of the !ourt of &ppeals +!&, in !&-..R. !R. No. /%012, "hich denied
the Motion for Reconsideration
/
of the #% Nove3ber $%%4 !& Decision
0
affir3in' the
conviction of d3undo sca3illa +petitioner, for frustrated ho3icide.
5&!6.RO7ND
The facts of this case, culled fro3 the records, are as follo"s8
Petitioner has a house "ith a sari-sari store alon' &rellano Street, Manila.
1
The victi3, Vir'ilio
Mendol +Mendol,, is a tric9cle driver "hose route traverses the road "here petitioner:s store is
located.
2
&round $8%% a.3. of %# &u'ust #(((, a bra"l ensued at the co3er of strada and &rellano
Streets, Manila.
;
Mendol "as about to ride his tric9cle at this intersection "hile facin' &rellano
Street.
4
Petitioner, "ho "as standin' in front of his store, /% 3eters a"a9 fro3 Mendol,
(
shot the
latter four ti3es, hittin' hi3 once in the upper ri'ht portion of his chest.
#%
The victi3 "as
brou'ht to Ospital ng Ma)ati for treat3ent
##
and survived because of ti3el9 3edical attention.
#$
The &ssistant !it9 Prosecutor of Manila filed an Infor3ation
#/
dated %# Dece3ber #(((
char'in' petitioner "ith frustrated ho3icide. The Infor3ation reads8
That on or about &u'ust #, #(((, in the !it9 of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, "ith intent
to )ill, did then and there "ilfull9, unla"full9 and feloniousl9 attac), assault and use personal
violence upon the person of one Vir'ilio Mendol, b9 then and there shootin' the latter "ith a .
(33 Te)arev pistol "ith Serial No. 0%$4/ hittin' hi3 on the upper ri'ht portion of his chest,
thereb9 inflictin' upon hi3 'unshot "ound "hich is necessaril9 fatal and 3ortal, thus
perfor3in' all the acts of e<ecution "hich should have produced the cri3e of =o3icide as a
conse>uence, but nevertheless did not produce it b9 reason of causes, independent of his "ill,
that is, b9 the ti3el9 and able 3edical assistance rendered to said Vir'ilio Mendol "hich
prevented his death.
!ONTR&R? TO @&A.
7pon arrai'n3ent, petitioner pleaded not 'uilt9.
#0
Durin' trial, the prosecution presented the
testi3onies of Mendol, *oseph Velasco +Velasco, and Ilu3inado .arcelaBo +.arcelaBo,, "ho all
positivel9 identified hi3 as the shooter of Mendol.
#1
The doctor "ho attended to the victi3 also
testified.
#2
The docu3entar9 evidence presented included a s)etch of the cri3e scene, the
Medical !ertificate issued b9 the ph9sician, and receipts of the 3edical e<penses of Mendol
"hen the latter "as treated for the 'unshot "ound.
#;
In the course of the presentation of the
prosecution "itnesses, the defense re>uested an ocular inspection of the cri3e scene, a re>uest
that "as 'ranted b9 the court.
#4
On the other hand, the defense "itnesses are petitioner hi3self,
his "ife, Velasco and Barangay Tanod .eor'e &su3brado +&su3brado,.
#(
The defense offered
the results of the paraffin test of petitioner and the transcript of steno'raphic notes ta)en durin'
the courtCs ocular inspection of the cri3e scene.
$%
The Re'ional Trial !ourt +RT!, held that the positive testi3onies of e9e"itnesses deserve far
3ore "ei'ht and credence than the defense of alibi.
$#
Thus, it found petitioner 'uilt9 of frustrated
ho3icide.
$$
The dispositive portion reads8
A=RFOR, the !ourt finds the accused d3und sca3illa ? *u'o .7I@T? be9ond
reasonable doubt of the cri3e of Frustrated =o3icide under &rticles $0( and 1% DsicE of the
Revised Penal !ode, and hereb9 sentences the accused to suffer an indeter3inate sentence of si<
+2, 3onths and one +#, da9 of prision correccional as 3ini3u3, to ei'ht +4, 9ears and one +#,
da9 of prision mayor as 3a<i3u3. &ccused is hereb9 ordered to inde3nif9 co3plainant Vir'ilio
Mendol the su3 of /0,/%1.#2 for actual da3a'es, /%,%%%.%% for 3oral da3a'es.
SO ORDRD.
$/
Petitioner filed a Notice of &ppeal dated #0 *ul9 $%%2.
$0
In the brief that the !& re>uired hi3 to
file,
$1
he >uestioned the credibilit9 of the prosecution "itnesses over that of the defense.
$2
On the
other hand, the &ppelleeCs 5rief
$;
posited that the prosecution "itnesses "ere credible, because
there "ere no serious discrepancies in their testi3onies.
$4
Petitioner, in his Repl9 brief,
$(
said that
the prosecution "itnesses did not actuall9 see hi3 fire the 'un.
/%
Further3ore, his paraffin test
9ielded a ne'ative result.
/#
The !&, rulin' a'ainst petitioner, held that the issue of the credibilit9 of "itnesses is "ithin the
do3ain of the trial court, "hich is in a better position to observe their de3eanor.
/$
Thus, the !&
upheld the RT!Cs appreciation of the credibilit9 of the prosecution "itnesses in the present
case.
//
&lso, the !& ruled that the victi3Cs positive and une>uivocal identification of petitioner
totall9 destro9ed his defense of alibi. =ence, it found no reason to disbelieve MendolCs
testi3on9.
/0
In addition, it said that a paraffin test is not a conclusive proof that a person has not
fired a 'un and is inconse>uential "hen there is a positive identification of petitioner.
/1
& Motion for Reconsideration
/2
dated %4 Dece3ber $%%4 "as filed b9 petitioner, "ho asserted
that the defense "as able to discredit the testi3on9 of the victi3.
/;
In its #% *une $%%( Resolution,
/4
the !& denied petitionerCs Motion for Reconsideration for
bein' "ithout 3erit, because the 3atters discussed therein had alread9 been resolved in its #%
Nove3ber $%%4 Decision.
/(
=ence, this Petition
0%
assailin' the application to this case of the rule that the positive
identification of the accused has 3ore "ei'ht than the defense of alibi.
0#
This !ourt resolved to
re>uire the prosecution to co33ent on the Petition.
0$
In his !o33ent
0/
dated #1 Dece3ber $%%(,
the victi3 said that his positive identification of petitioner "as a direct evidence that the latter
"as the author of the cri3e.
00
Further3ore, "hat petitioner raised "as alle'edl9 a >uestion of
fact, "hich is proscribed b9 a Rule 01 petition.
01
Thus, the victi3 alle'ed, there bein' no ne" or
substantial 3atter or >uestion of la" raised, the Petition should be denied.
02
Ae then obli'ed petitioner to file a repl9.
0;
In his Repl9 dated %# March $%#%,
04
he assi'ned as
an error the application b9 the !& of the rule that the positive identification of the accused has
3ore "ei'ht than the defense of alibi.
0(
=e posits that the lo"er court 3anifestl9 overloo)ed
relevant facts not disputed b9 the parties, but if properl9 considered "ould Fustif9 a different
conclusion.
1%
This !ourt, he said, should then ad3it an e<ception to the 'eneral rule that the
findin's of fact of the !& are bindin' upon the Supre3e !ourt.
1#
SSUES
The >uestions before us are as follo"s8
I. Ahether the prosecution established petitionerCs 'uilt be9ond reasonable doubt.
1$
II. Ahether a defense of alibi, "hen corroborated b9 a disinterested part9, overco3es the
positive identification b9 three "itnesses.
1/
COURT$S RU!NG
Ae den9 the Petition.
I. The prosecution proved petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A. Pe%&%&o'er (a) *o)&%&+e,y &-e'%&.&e- by %/ree (&%'e))e).
Petitioner ar'ues that there "as reasonable doubt as to the identit9 of the shooter.
10
=e is "ron'.
&s correctl9 held b9 the RT! and affir3ed b9 the !&, the identit9 of the assailant "as proved
"ith 3oral certaint9 b9 the prosecution, "hich presented three "itnesses G the victi3 Mendol,
Velasco, and .arcelaBo G "ho all positivel9 identified hi3 as the shooter.
11
Ae have held that a
cate'orical and consistentl9 positive identification of the accused, "ithout an9 sho"in' of ill
3otive on the part of the e9e"itnesses, prevails over denial.
12
&ll the three "itnesses "ere
uns"ervin' in their testi3onies pointin' to hi3 as the shooter. None of the3 had an9 ulterior
3otive to testif9 a'ainst hi3.
Mendol said that he "as about to ride his tric9cle at the corner of &rellano and strada Streets,
"hen petitioner, "ho "as in front of the for3erCs store, shot hi3.
1;
The first shot hit its tar'et,
but petitioner continued to fire at the victi3 three 3ore ti3es, and the latter then started to run
a"a9.
14
Velasco, "ho "as also at the corner of strada and &rellano Streets, heard the first shot, loo)ed
around, then sa" petitioner firin' at Mendol three 3ore ti3es.
1(
@astl9, .arcelaBo testified that "hile he "as bu9in' bread fro3 a ba)er9 at that sa3e street
corner, he heard three shots before he turned his head and sa" petitioner pointin' a 'un at the
direction of the victi3, "ho "as bloodied in the ri'ht chest.
2%
.arcelaBo "as Fust an ar3Cs len'th
a"a9 fro3 hi3.
2#
The three "itnesses had a front vie" of the face of petitioner, because the9 "ere all facin'
&rellano Street fro3 its intersection "ith strada Street, "hich "as the locus criminis.
2$

&lthou'h the cri3e happened in the "ee hours of the 3ornin', there "as a street la3p five
3eters fro3 "here petitioner "as standin' "hen he shot the victi3, thus allo"in' a clear vie" of
the assailantCs face.
2/
The9 all )ne" petitioner, because the9 either bou'ht fro3 or passed b9 his
store.
20
0. T/e &'%e'% %o 1&,, (a) )/o(' by %/e 2o'%&'uou) .&r&'3 a% %/e +&2%&4 e+e' a.%er /e (a) /&%.
Petitioner clai3s that the prosecution "as unable to prove his intent to )ill.
21
=e is 3ista)en. The
intent to )ill, as an essential ele3ent of ho3icide at "hatever sta'e, 3a9 be before or
si3ultaneous "ith the infliction of inFuries.
22
The evidence to prove intent to )ill 3a9 consist of,
inter alia, the 3eans usedH the nature, location and nu3ber of "ounds sustained b9 the victi3H
and the conduct of the 3alefactors before, at the ti3e of, or i33ediatel9 after the )illin' of the
victi3.
2;
PetitionerCs intent to )ill "as si3ultaneous "ith the infliction of inFuries. 7sin' a 'un,
24
he shot
the victi3 in the chest.
2(
Despite a bloodied ri'ht upper torso, the latter still 3ana'ed to run
to"ards his house to as) for help.
;%
Nonetheless, petitioner continued to shoot at hi3 three 3ore
ti3es,
;#
albeit unsuccessfull9.
;$
Ahile runnin', the victi3 sa" his nephe" in front of the house
and as)ed for help.
;/
The victi3 "as i33ediatel9 brou'ht to the hospital on board an o"ner-t9pe
Feep.
;0
The attendin' ph9sician, findin' that the bullet had no point of e<it, did not atte3pt to
e<tract itH its e<traction "ould Fust have caused further da3a'e.
;1
The doctor further said that the
victi3 "ould have died if the latter "ere not brou'ht i33ediatel9 to the hospital.
;2
&ll these
facts belie the absence of petitionerCs intent to )ill the victi3.
II. Denial and alibi were not proven.
In order for alibi to prosper, petitioner 3ust establish b9 clear and convincin' evidence that,
first, he "as in another place at the ti3e of the offenseH a'-, second, it "as ph9sicall9 i3possible
for hi3 to be at the scene of the cri3e.
;;
The appreciation of the defense of alibi is pe''ed
a'ainst this standard and nothin' else. Petitioner, as found b9 both the RT! and !&, failed to
prove the presence of these t"o re>uisite conditions. =ence, he "as "ron' in assertin' that alibi,
"hen corroborated b9 other "itnesses, succeeds as a defense over positive identification.
;4
A. Pe%&%&o'er (a) u'ab,e %o e)%ab,&)/ %/a% /e (a) a% /o4e a% %/e %&4e o. %/e o..e')e.
The alibi of petitioner "as that he "as at ho3e asleep "ith his "ife "hen Mendol "as shot.
;(
To
support his clai3, petitioner presented the testi3onies of his "ife and &su3brado.
4%
1. The wife of petitioner did not know if he was at home when the shooting happened.
The "ife of petitioner testified that both of the3 "ent to sleep at (8%% p.3. and "ere a"a)ened at
/8%% a.3. b9 the ban'in' on their door.
4#
=o"ever, she also said that she did not )no" if
petitioner sta9ed inside their house, or if he "ent so3e"here else durin' the entire ti3e she "as
asleep.
4$
=er testi3on9 does not sho" that he "as indeed at ho3e "hen the cri3e happened. &t
the 3ost, it onl9 establishes that he "as at ho3e before and after the shootin'. =er lac) of
)no"led'e re'ardin' his "hereabouts bet"een #8%% a.3. and /8%% a.3. belies the credibilit9 of
his alibi. ven so, the testi3onies of relatives deserve scant consideration, especiall9 "hen there
is positive identification
4/
b9 three "itnesses.
2. Asumbrano did not see the entire face of the shooter.
Petitioner is >uestionin' "h9 neither the RT! nor the !& too) into account the testi3on9 of
&su3brado, the Barangay Tanod on dut9 that ni'ht.
40
5oth courts "ere correct in not 'ivin'
"ei'ht to his testi3on9.
&su3brado said that he "as there "hen the victi3 "as shot, not b9 appellant, but b9 a bi' 3an
"ho "as in his t"enties.
41
This assertion "as based onl9 on a bac) vie" of the 3an "ho fired the
'un #$ 3eters a"a9 fro3 &su3brado.
42
The latter never sa" the shooterCs entire face.
4;
Neither
did the "itness see the victi3 "hen the latter "as hit.
44
&su3brado also affir3ed that he "as
hidin' "hen the riot too) place.
4(
These declarations >uestion his co3petence to une>uivocall9
state that indeed it "as not petitioner "ho fired at Mendol.
5. Petitioner:s ho3e "as Fust in front of the street "here the shootin' occurred.
Ph9sical i3possibilit9 refers to the distance bet"een the place "here the accused "as "hen the
cri3e transpired and the place "here it "as co33itted, as "ell as the facilit9 of access bet"een
the t"o places.
(%
Petitioner failed to prove the ph9sical i3possibilit9 of his bein' at the scene of
the cri3e at the ti3e in >uestion.
5oth the prosecution and the defense "itnesses referred to the front of appellant:s house or store
"henever the9 testified on the location of the shooter. Petitioner "as in front of his house "hen
he shot the victi3, accordin' to Velasco:s testi3on9.
(#
Mean"hile the state3ent of &su3brado
that the 'ate of the store of the petitioner "as closed "hen the shootin' happened
($
can onl9
3ean that the latter:s house and store "ere both located in front of the scene of the
cri3e.1wphi1
Petitioner proffers the alibi that he "as at ho3e, instead of sho"in' the i3possibilit9 of his
authorship of the cri3e. =is alibi actuall9 bolsters the prosecution:s clai3 that he "as the
shooter, because it placed hi3 Fust a fe" steps a"a9 fro3 the scene of the cri3e. The char'e is
further bolstered b9 the testi3on9 of his "ife, "ho could not sa9 "ith certaint9 that he "as at
ho3e at $8%%a.3.- the appro<i3ate ti3e "hen the victi3 "as shot.
5ased on the fore'oin', it cannot be said that the lo"er courts overloo)ed an9 fact that could
have Fustified a different conclusion. =ence, the !& "as correct in affir3in' the R T! :s
Decision that petitioner, be9ond reasonable doubt, "as the assailant.
A=RFOR, in vie" of the fore'oin', the Petition is DNID. The #% *une $%%(
Resolution
(/
and #% Nove3ber $%%4 Decision
(0
of the !ourt of &ppeals in !&-..R. !R. No.
/%012 are hereb9 &FFIRMD in toto.
SO ORDRD
MARA !OURDES P. A. SERENO
!hief *ustice, !hairperson