G.R. No. 139830 November 21, 2002
Rolly Adame, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rolly Adame and Teresito Adame were charged with Frustrated Homicide. The information alleged that on November 8, 1995, in Batangas City, Rolly Adame, armed with a handgun, with intent to kill, willfully attacked and shot Manolito Lacsamana, hitting him in the stomach, performing all acts of execution for homicide, but the victim did not die due to timely medical attendance. Teresito Adame was charged as an accomplice for standing by Rolly and firing a handgun into the air. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of victim Manolito Lacsamana and his daughter Mildred, was that they went to confront Ruben Lacsamana. Manolito’s son, Manolo, threw a stone at Ruben’s house and fled. Later, Manolito returned and challenged Ruben. Petitioner Rolly Adame then came out of his house and fired two shots, the second hitting Manolito. Teresito Adame also came out and fired shots upwards. Manolito survived after hospitalization. The defense version, presented by petitioner, was that he heard Manolito shouting invectives, peeped through his door, saw a drunken Manolito and Mildred grappling for a gun which fired twice, and then, frightened, closed his door and went to sleep. The Regional Trial Court convicted Rolly Adame of Frustrated Homicide but acquitted Teresito Adame. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to convict petitioner of frustrated homicide, and (2) whether the proper penalty was imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. On the first issue, the Court found petitioner’s testimony contrived and unnatural, noting his claim of going to sleep immediately after witnessing a startling event was contrary to human experience. The Court gave weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Manolito and Mildred Lacsamana, finding any inconsistencies to be on minor details which even strengthened their credibility. The Court also noted petitioner’s flight from the scene after the incident, which indicated guilt. The acquittal of co-accused Teresito Adame did not benefit petitioner as the evidence against them differed. The Court also held that the crime committed was frustrated homicide, not serious physical injuries, as the acts of execution were complete and the intent to kill was established by the location of the gunshot wound (stomach). On the second issue, the Court modified the penalty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was set at one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum. The award of actual damages was disallowed for lack of competent proof, but temperate damages of P20,000 and moral damages of P30,000 were awarded to the victim.