G.R. No. 126624 ; November 11, 2003
OSCAR SANTOS y PANGANIBAN, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

On May 15, 1990, in Paombong, Bulacan, petitioner Oscar Santos, armed with a jungle bolo, and his brother, Pedro Santos, Jr., armed with a .45 caliber pistol, blocked the path of victims Loreto Hernandez and Roy de Borja. Without provocation, Pedro aimed his pistol at Hernandez’s face, but it misfired. Petitioner then hacked Hernandez twice, striking his right forearm and head. Hernandez fell semi-conscious. Petitioner then turned to De Borja, who attempted to flee, and stabbed him in the back near the waistline. Believing the victims dead, petitioner told his brother, “Utol, Jr. alis na tayo; patay na ang mga iyan.” Both victims survived after receiving timely medical assistance. Hernandez suffered a complete fracture of the ulnar bone requiring multiple surgeries, while De Borja sustained a stab wound.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of the two victims. The defense presented a different version, claiming the incident was a chance encounter where the victims were the aggressors, and petitioner acted in self-defense after being attacked with a knife. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible, convicted petitioner of two counts of frustrated homicide, and sentenced him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of frustrated homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and damages. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which gave greater weight to the clear, consistent, and credible testimonies of the victims over the petitioner’s claim of self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The victims’ testimonies established that the unlawful aggression originated solely from petitioner and his brother, who initiated the attack without any provocation. The nature, number, and location of the wounds inflicted—hacking and stabbing with a bolo—were inconsistent with a claim of self-defense and indicated a determined effort to kill.
The crime committed is frustrated homicide. All acts of execution were performed, as petitioner inflicted wounds which, per medical findings, were fatal and would have caused death were it not for timely medical intervention independent of petitioner’s will. The penalty imposed was proper under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court, however, modified the award of damages, adding moral damages of P30,000 to each victim pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, as the crime resulted in physical injuries, while affirming the awards for actual and temperate damages.