G.R. No. 182748; December 13, 2011
ARNEL COLINARES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Arnel Colinares, was charged with Frustrated Homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camarines Sur. The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of June 25, 2000, complainant Rufino Buena was struck twice on the head with a large stone by Arnel, rendering him unconscious. Witnesses Ananias Jallores and Paciano Alano corroborated the incident. Dr. Albert Belleza’s medico-legal certificate showed Rufino suffered two lacerated wounds on the forehead, which he described as serious and potentially fatal, though Rufino chose to go home after initial treatment. Arnel invoked self-defense, testifying that Rufino, Jesus Paulite, and Ananias Jallores, who were drunk, attacked him first, with Rufino attempting to stab him, prompting him to use the stone in defense. His witness, Diomedes Paulite, only testified to seeing a heated argument. The RTC convicted Arnel of Frustrated Homicide and imposed a prison term exceeding the probationable limit (maximum of over six years), making him ineligible for probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Arnel appealed to the Supreme Court, raising self-defense and, alternatively, seeking conviction for the lesser crime of Attempted Homicide to potentially qualify for probation. The Court directed the parties to submit their positions on whether Arnel could apply for probation if the penalty were reduced to a probationable one upon remand.

ISSUE

1. Whether Arnel acted in self-defense.
2. Assuming no self-defense, whether Arnel is guilty of Frustrated Homicide or the lesser crime of Attempted Homicide.
3. Given a finding of a lesser offense with a reduced probationable penalty, whether Arnel may still apply for probation upon remand to the trial court.

RULING

1. On Self-Defense: No. The Court ruled Arnel failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence. His claim that the victims attacked him first was uncorroborated and unsupported by medical evidence. In contrast, the prosecution witnesses consistently identified Arnel as the aggressor. The inconsistencies in their testimonies did not detract from the core narrative of Arnel’s aggression.
2. On the Crime Committed: The Court found Arnel guilty of Attempted Homicide, not Frustrated Homicide. The prosecution proved Arnel had intent to kill, inferred from his use of a large stone to strike the victim’s head. However, for Frustrated Homicide, the prosecution must prove that the victim’s injuries were fatal without timely medical intervention. Here, Dr. Belleza could not categorically state that Rufino’s wounds were fatal; he only described them as serious and potentially fatal. The evidence did not show the wounds would have caused death absent medical treatment (e.g., no skull fracture or internal bleeding was indicated). Thus, the crime did not progress beyond the attempted stage.
3. On Probation: Yes, Arnel may apply for probation upon remand. The Court held that an accused who appeals a conviction is generally barred from applying for probation under the Probation Law (P.D. 968). However, an exception applies where the trial court’s erroneous conviction and imposition of a non-probationable penalty effectively deprived the accused of the right to apply for probation. Since Arnel’s appeal resulted in a modification of his conviction to a lesser offense with a probationable penalty, fairness dictates he should be allowed to apply for probation. The Court distinguished this from a situation where an accused appeals despite already being granted a probationable penalty, in which case the appeal waiver rule applies. Here, Arnel had no choice but to appeal to correct the erroneous judgment.