Yap vs.

People (2018)

Petitioners: Johnny Garcia Yap

Respondents: People of the Philippines

Ponente: Peralta (Third Division)

Topic: Criminal Law

SUMMARY: Yap invoked self-defense in the charge of attempted murder for hitting his friend Ang on his
forehead. The SC did not find unlawful aggression, hence self-defense was not present. However, since there
was no proof of intent to kill, the SC found that Yap committed slight physical injuries.

DOCTRINE: Without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, either complete or incomplete.

When intent to kill is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not attempted murder but
physical injuries only.

FACTS:

Yap was charged with attempted murder. He invoked self-defense. Thus, the defense first presented its
evidence.

According to the defense, Yap and the alleged victim, George Hao Ang, had been long-time friends.
Around 3:20 p.m. of November 5, 2012, Yap and Ang met at the KFC store along Vito Cruz St. in Manila for the
purpose of meeting some girls. Since it was drizzling, they decided to wait inside Ang's car. While waiting, Yap
informed Ang that they are going to meet the same set of girls they have previously gone out with before. Ang
complained because he did not like the girl with whom he was paired. This led to an argument between the two.
Ang then punched Yap's face causing the latter to retaliate. They then engaged in a scuffle and in the process,
Ang got hold of a rolling pin and used the same to hit Yap on the forehead. Yap was eventually able to wrest
possession of the rolling pin and was able to hit Ang also in the forehead causing a wound from which blood
oozed. Ang tried to recover possession of the rolling pin from Yap, but the latter bit the former's hand. The rolling
pin fell and, thereafter, both Yap and Ang got out of the car and ran towards opposite directions.

Meanwhile, the prosecution alleged that on November 5, 2012, Ang and Yap met at the KFC store
because the latter wanted to introduce the former to a businessman. Between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m., Yap arrived
carrying two cups of coffee and a plastic bag. Ang invited Yap to go inside the KFC, but the latter insisted that
that they wait inside Ang's car. Yap then offered Ang a cup of coffee, but the latter refused because he does not
drink coffee. Yap, nonetheless, insisted saying that the cup of coffee he bought was expensive. Ang acceded
and took a sip but Yap encouraged him to finish his coffee. Ang drank 3/4 of the coffee. Shortly thereafter, he
felt groggy and, subsequently, lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Ang felt something hit his
head. Thereupon, he saw Yap holding a bloodied rolling pin and hitting him with it. He tried to parry the blows
and kept asking Yap why he was hitting him but the latter did not reply and, instead, hit him several times more.
Feeling helpless, Ang opened the car door and successfully escaped despite Yap's attempt to prevent him from
doing so. He was eventually able to ask help from passers-by who brought him to the hospital.

ISSUES:

 WoN Yap was bound by his previous counsel's gross mistake in invoking self-defense as the latter did
not explain the nature and concept of such defense to him
 o YES. It is a well-settled rule that the client is bound by the counsel's conduct, negligence, and
mistakes in handling the case; and the client cannot be heard to complain that the result might
have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently. An exception to this rule is when the
negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his client's interest and denied
him his day in court.
o In this case, the general rule applies and the above exception finds no application because Yap
failed to prove that his previous counsel's act of invoking self-defense, on Yap's behalf, is
tantamount to gross negligence as to deprive Yap of his right to due process.
o The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that records would show that Yap
was ably represented by his former counsel during trial and was not denied due process, as
shown by the following: first, Yap and his wife were able to take the witness stand 'where they
themselves were personally able to present their case to the court during direct examination;
second, during cross-examination, Yap was able to knowingly and intelligently answer the
questions propounded to him by the prosecutor and the trial judge; and third, when the
prosecution presented its case, Yap, through his former counsel, was able to examine the
witnesses and the evidence presented.
o Moreover, for the abovementioned exception to apply, the gross negligence of counsel
should not be accompanied by his client's own negligence or malice. In this regard, the
Court likewise agrees with the OSG's observation and accompanying argument that Yap was
guilty of negligence for his failure to raise the issue of his former counsel's alleged incompetence
before the trial court and the CA, after engaging the services of a new counsel. It appears that
this defense is a mere afterthought because if Yap and his present counsel really believed that
the previous counsel was guilty of gross incompetence in handling Yap's case, they would have
brought this matter to the attention of either the RTC or the CA at the first instance. But they did
not. Hence, they must suffer the effect of their passivity and inaction.
 WoN Yap’s invocation of self-defense has merit
o NO. Both the RTC and the CA found that the evidence shows that there was no unlawful
aggression coming from Ang. The Court finds no error on the part of the RTC and the CA in
holding that the records are bereft of sufficient proof to support Yap's allegation that Ang punched
and hit him on the face. In fact, the CA held that Yap stated in his testimony that he has no
evidence of his claimed injury and, indeed, his medical certificate states that he did not exhibit
any external signs of physical injuries at the time of his examination. Neither was there competent
evidence to prove Yap's claim that Ang's head injuries were accidentally self-inflicted when Yap
supposedly lost grip of the rolling pin when he and Ang were fighting for its possession which
allegedly caused Ang to hit himself on the head. The RTC also observed that Yap never
mentioned during the police investigation that he acted in self-defense.
 WoN RTC and CA committed error in finding Yap guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder
o YES. The following factors are considered to determine the presence of intent to kill, namely: (1)
the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by
the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the
victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the
accused.
o Yap's alleged intent to kill Ang cannot be clearly inferred from the surrounding circumstances.
 As to the means used by Yap, there is no evidence to show that he carried with him any
deadly weapon during his meeting with Ang. The rolling pin which he used as a weapon
to hit Ang was already inside the latter's car when they met. Also, if Yap really intended to
kill Ang, he would have hit the latter several times. However, the physician, who examined
 Ang and was presented as a witness by the prosecution, testified that the injuries
sustained by Ang were only caused by a single blow to the forehead."
 As to the nature, location and number of wounds, contrary to the conclusion of the CA,
there is no evidence to show that Ang's wounds were serious and severe. He did not
obtain any head fracture and his injuries proved to be superficial as they only consisted of
a hematoma, contusion and laceration. In fact, the laceration is only about an inch in
length. Moreover, Ang was fully treated within two hours and was immediately sent home.
The superficiality of the injuries sustained by the private complainant is a clear indication
that his life and limb were never in actual peril.
 With respect to the conduct of Yap, and the surrounding circumstances before and during
the time that Ang was injured, there is no clear evidence of Yap's intent to kill the former.
In fact, even at the time that he testified in court, Ang was still at a loss why Yap wanted
to harm him.
o When such intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not
attempted murder but physical injuries only.
o Article 266 of the RPC provides that "[t]he crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished by
arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the
offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the
same period." Indeed, although the charge in the instant case is for attempted murder, a finding
of guilt for the lesser offense of slight physical injuries is proper, considering that the latter offense
is necessarily included in the former, as the essential ingredients of slight physical injuries
constitute and form part of those constituting the offense of murder. As earlier discussed,
evidence on record shows that Ang was brought to the Ospital ng Maynila for medical treatment
immediately after the incident. Right after receiving medical treatment, Ang was then released as
an out-patient. There was no competent evidence to establish that he was incapacitated for labor
and/or required medical attendance for more than nine days. Without such evidence, the offense
is only slight physical injuries.
 WoN the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present
o NO. There was no clear evidence to show that Ang was unconscious· at the time that Yap began
to attack him. On the contrary, there is no dispute that Ang was immediately brought to the hospital
after he sustained his injury and that the physician who examined him testified that he arrived at
the Emergency Room of the hospital fully conscious and he did not exhibit any physical
manifestations of being intoxicated or drugged.

NOTES: Petition PARTLY GRANTED. Yap is guilty of slight physical injuries, not attempted murder.