G.R. No. 143487 ; February 22, 2006
TOMMY FERRER, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

On the evening of April 14, 1990, brothers Roque and Ricardo Ferrer were on their way to their father’s house in Mangatarem, Pangasinan. Upon arrival, they heard their cousin, Ramon Ferrer, shout derogatory remarks. Ricardo confronted Ramon, who was drinking with his brother Tommy, Tommy’s wife Che-Che, and others. Without warning, Ramon stabbed Roque. Ricardo intervened to restrain Ramon, but Tommy then stabbed Ricardo twice in the back with an ice pick. A chaotic attack ensued, with Ramon, Tommy, and Che-Che assaulting both victims with bladed weapons and a bamboo pole before fleeing. The victims were hospitalized, with Roque sustaining multiple serious stab wounds.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming that Ricardo was the initial aggressor who attacked Ramon with a knife. They alleged that Tommy only intervened to defend his brother, disarming Ricardo, and that any injuries inflicted were in the course of self-defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted Tommy and Ramon of Attempted Homicide (for Ricardo) and Frustrated Homicide (for Roque), a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of petitioner Tommy Ferrer for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions. The Court meticulously applied the legal principles governing self-defense. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to them to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found the defense’s narrative unconvincing and fraught with inconsistencies. The nature, number, and location of the wounds inflicted upon the victims—who were unarmed—were medically and legally incompatible with a claim of mere self-defense. The severity of the attack indicated a determined intent to kill, not to repel an aggressor.
Furthermore, the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, affirmed by the CA, is accorded high respect. The prosecution witnesses provided a coherent and consistent account of a concerted attack by the accused, demonstrating conspiracy. The Court ruled that all elements of the crimes were established: for Frustrated Homicide, the accused performed all acts of execution intended to kill, and the victim’s survival was due to timely medical intervention; for Attempted Homicide, the overt acts clearly commenced the commission of the felony but were not carried out to completion. Thus, the convictions were upheld.