G.R. No. 176609 December 18, 2008
FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN alias PADO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging petitioner Fernando Estabas Mahawan with Frustrated Homicide. It was alleged that on October 5, 1995, in Cebu City, the accused, armed with a firearm, with intent to kill, shot Diosdada Paradero, inflicting upon her a gunshot wound on the left chest and other injuries which would have caused her death were it not for timely medical assistance. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Paradero, who testified that while tending her store, petitioner arrived asking for beer, and upon being told there was none, sneaked inside, pulled out a gun, and shot her in the left chest. As she fell and grabbed a knife, petitioner shot again, grazing her earlobe, then snatched the knife and fled. Dr. James Guardiario testified on the treatment and operations performed on Paradero for her injuries. Police Chief Inspector Myrna Arreola presented a paraffin test result showing gunpowder residue on petitioner’s right hand. The defense presented petitioner and his neighbor Antonio Artiaga. Petitioner claimed self-defense, testifying that he went to the store to buy cigarettes, Paradero shouted she had none, then suddenly came out with a knife and tried to stab him. They grappled for the knife, injuring his finger, and when Paradero attacked again, slightly hitting his stomach, he drew his firearm and shot her. He then took the knife, went home, and later surrendered to a police officer. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of frustrated homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for frustrated homicide and in not appreciating his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that petitioner failed to prove the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. First, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not established. The physical evidence did not corroborate petitioner’s claim of a life-threatening knife attack; the medical certificate only showed minor injuries (incised wound on the left finger and abdominal abrasion) inconsistent with a determined assault. The location of the gunshot wound on Paradero (left chest) and the paraffin test result indicating petitioner fired a gun supported the prosecution’s version. Second, the means employed (use of a firearm) was not reasonably necessary to repel the alleged aggression from a woman armed only with a knife. Third, there was sufficient provocation from petitioner, as his act of sneaking into the store after being told there was no beer could have alarmed Paradero. The Court also found that the prosecution proved the crime of frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt, establishing the accused’s intent to kill through the weapon used and the location of the wound. The awards for damages were modified, deleting unearned income for lack of basis but awarding temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for expenses not fully receipted, and moral damages. The equipoise doctrine was inapplicable as the evidence preponderated in favor of the prosecution.