GR 148971; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148971 ; November 29, 2006
ALBERTO GARONG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The case stemmed from an incident on February 19, 1991, which resulted in two criminal cases. Gerson Morta was charged with multiple attempted homicide for allegedly attacking Efren Fajardo, Cesar Guevarra, and Alberto Garong. In a separate case, Alberto Garong, along with Guevarra and Fajardo, was charged with frustrated homicide for allegedly attacking and shooting Morta. To resolve the inconsistency of the State prosecuting both sides from a single incident, the parties agreed to adopt the prosecution’s evidence in one case as the defense evidence in the other.
The trial court found that after a prior altercation, Morta returned to the scene, destroyed a fence, and attacked the individuals inside the compound with a bladed weapon. During this attack, while Morta was assaulting Garong, a gunshot was fired, wounding Morta. The Regional Trial Court convicted Garong of frustrated homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Garong’s conviction for frustrated homicide and in not appreciating his claim of self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that self-defense is an affirmative allegation, and the burden of proof rests upon the accused to establish its elements by clear and convincing evidence. Garong failed to discharge this burden. The trial court’s factual findings, which were adopted and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, concluded that the aggression had already ceased when Garong shot Morta. Morta was already retreating and scampering away when the fatal shot was fired, negating the element of unlawful aggression necessary for self-defense.
Furthermore, the petition raised factual issues inappropriate for a Rule 45 review, which is limited to questions of law. The Supreme Court accords great weight and finality to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, as there was no showing that the lower courts overlooked material facts or misapplied the law. The positive identification of Garong as the perpetrator, coupled with the unsubstantiated claim of self-defense, warranted the affirmation of the judgment of conviction.