Roque vs. People

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law and cannot be used to re-examine or re-appreciate factual findings of lower courts regarding the elements of self-defense and intent to kill; furthermore, in frustrated homicide, intent to kill is determined by the nature of the weapon used and the location of the wounds inflicted, not merely by the gravity of the resulting injury.

On November 22, 2001, during the Thanksgiving Day celebration of Barangay Masagana in Pandi, Bulacan, petitioner Rogelio Roque, a barangay kagawad, was passing by on a tricycle with his wife when he encountered brothers Reynaldo and Rodolfo Marquez. Rodolfo shouted to someone else, but Roque believed the shout was directed at him, stopped his vehicle, and cursed Rodolfo. Reynaldo apologized for the misunderstanding, but Roque warned the brothers that something bad would happen if they continued to perturb him. Later that day, when Reynaldo proceeded to Roque's house to apologize again and follow his brother who had sought the barangay chairman's assistance, Roque allegedly emerged from his house with a gun and shot Reynaldo in the right ear and nape, then kicked him on the face and back while preventing barangay officials from rendering aid.

• On November 22, 2001, brothers Reynaldo and Rodolfo Marquez were at the house of Bella Salvador-Santos in Pandi, Bulacan, when Rodolfo spotted Rogelio dela Cruz and shouted to him to join them.
• Petitioner Rogelio Roque, a barangay kagawad, was passing by on a tricycle with his wife and believed Rodolfo's shout was directed at him, prompting him to stop the vehicle and curse Rodolfo.
• Reynaldo Marquez apologized for the misunderstanding, but petitioner warned the brothers that something bad would happen if they continued to perturb him before leaving.
• Bothered by the incident, Rodolfo went to the house of Barangay Chairman Pablo Tayao to seek assistance, while Reynaldo, who had gone home, was fetched by dela Cruz and brought to Tayao's house.
• Since Tayao was no longer around when they arrived, Reynaldo proceeded to petitioner's house to follow Tayao and Rodolfo, and upon arriving, apologized again to petitioner.
• Petitioner entered his house without replying, and when he came out, he was holding a gun which he suddenly fired at Reynaldo, hitting him in the right ear.
• Petitioner shot Reynaldo a second time, hitting him in the nape, causing him to fall to the ground, after which petitioner kicked Reynaldo on the face and back.
• Reynaldo pleaded to Tayao for help, but petitioner warned those around not to get involved; Reynaldo's parents arrived and took him to a local hospital for emergency treatment, and he was later transferred to Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital in Manila where he was confined for three weeks.
• Dr. Renato Raymundo issued a medical certificate stating that a bullet entered the base of Reynaldo's skull and exited at the back of his right ear.
• The defense presented a contrary version claiming that the Marquez brothers were intoxicated, cursed petitioner, threatened to return to kill him, later challenged him to a gun duel, and that Reynaldo fired first, prompting petitioner to fire back twice in self-defense.
• The RTC and CA both rejected the defense version and found petitioner guilty of frustrated homicide.

• The Court of Appeals erroneously appreciated the facts and evidence when it ruled that the element of unlawful aggression was not satisfactorily proven since the accused-appellant failed to show that the victim was indeed armed with a gun.
• The Court of Appeals erroneously appreciated the facts and evidence when it ruled that granting for the benefit of argument that there was indeed unlawful aggression, petitioner was no longer justified in firing at the victim for the second time.
• The Court of Appeals erroneously appreciated the facts and evidence when it ruled that intent to kill was present considering that the private complainant allegedly received two gunshot wounds and the petitioner prevented barangay officials from intervening and helping the wounded victim.

• The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of frustrated homicide, including the intent to kill, through the nature of the weapon used (a gun) and the location of the wounds (head), which are vital parts of the body.
• The defense of self-defense was properly rejected by the lower courts because petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove the element of unlawful aggression by the victim.
• The petitioner exceeded the bounds of reasonable necessity when he fired a second shot and kicked the victim while the latter was already on the ground, demonstrating intent to kill rather than mere self-defense.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may properly raise questions regarding the appreciation of evidence and findings of fact by the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court concerning the existence of self-defense and intent to kill.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the petitioner acted in complete self-defense, or if unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity were present.
  • Whether the petitioner possessed the intent to kill necessary for the crime of frustrated homicide.
  • Whether the awards of damages should be modified to include temperate and moral damages.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, and the assigned errors requiring re-appreciation and re-examination of evidence are evidentiary and factual in nature.
  • The Court will not disturb factual findings of the RTC when affirmed by the CA unless they are mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings of the court of origin, none of which were established by petitioner.
  • Findings of facts of the RTC, its calibration of testimonial evidence, and its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect when affirmed by the CA, particularly because the RTC had the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand.
• Substantive:
  • The Court affirmed the conviction for frustrated homicide, holding that intent to kill was sufficiently proven by the use of a deadly weapon (gun) aimed at the head (a vital part), evidenced by two gunshot wounds, and further demonstrated by petitioner preventing barangay officials from aiding the victim.
  • The claim of self-defense failed because unlawful aggression was not satisfactorily proven by the defense, and even assuming it existed, firing a second shot and kicking the victim exceeded the bounds of reasonable necessity.
  • The Court modified the damages award to include P25,000.00 in temperate damages and P25,000.00 in moral damages, with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the resolution until fully paid, since actual damages could not be awarded due to lack of receipts but pecuniary loss was undisputed.

• Rule 45 Limitation to Questions of Law — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is confined to questions of law and may not involve a re-examination of factual findings or appreciation of evidence by lower courts; factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded high respect and conclusive effect unless specific exceptions apply.
• Intent to Kill in Frustrated Homicide — Intent to kill is determined by the kind of weapon used and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed; the location of wounds plus the nature of the weapon indicate whether the objective was merely to warn or to kill, and the gravity of the resulting injury is not determinative if intent to kill is sufficiently borne out.
• Elements of Self-Defense — Self-defense requires proof of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself; the burden shifts to the accused to prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence.
• Temperate Damages — Temperate damages may be awarded when definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, provided the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss, as in cases of hospitalization where no receipts are presented but the fact of medical attendance is established.

• "A petition for review on certiorari raises only questions of law. Sec. 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court, explicitly so provides... The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth."
• "Petitioner's assigned errors, requiring as they do a re-appreciation and re-examination of the evidence, are evidentiary and factual in nature."
• "In attempted or frustrated homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill the victim... Usually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted."
• "Indeed the location of the wounds plus the nature of the weapon used are ready indications that the accused-appellant's objective is not merely to warn or incapacitate a supposed aggressor."
• "Nonetheless, absent competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a party still has the option of claiming temperate damages, which may be allowed in cases where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss."

• Batistis v. People — Cited for the rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raises only questions of law and that the Court will not disturb factual findings of the RTC affirmed by the CA unless specific exceptions apply.
• Rugas v. People — Cited for the doctrine that findings of facts of the RTC, its calibration of testimonial evidence, and its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect when affirmed by the CA.
• People v. Ruales — Cited for the principle that the RTC had the opportunity to observe witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth, justifying the conclusive effect of its factual findings.
• Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc. — Cited for the rule that temperate damages may be allowed when definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced but the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.
• Abella v. People — Cited for the award of temperate and moral damages in frustrated homicide cases and the imposition of interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality until fully paid.

• Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court — Governs the filing of petitions for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, limiting the review to questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
• Rule 122, Section 3 of the Rules of Court — Provides that review on appeal of a decision in a criminal case where the CA imposes a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is by petition for review on certiorari.
• Articles 263-266 of the Revised Penal Code — Cited regarding the distinction between physical injuries and frustrated homicide, emphasizing that intent to kill determines the crime regardless of the gravity of the injury.

• Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ. — Joined in the resolution without separate concurring opinions.