ENBANC

ARNELCOLINARES,G.R.No.182748
Petitioner,
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.Promulgated:

December13,2011

xx

DECISION

ABAD,J.:

Thiscaseisabouta)theneed,wheninvokingselfdefense,toproveallthatittakes;b)whatdistinguishesfrustrated
homicidefromattemptedhomicide;andc)whenanaccusedwhoappealsmaystillapplyforprobationonremandof
thecasetothetrialcourt.

TheFactsandtheCase
ThepublicprosecutorofCamarinesSurchargedtheaccusedArnelColinares(Arnel)withfrustratedhomicidebefore
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofSanJose,CamarinesSur,inCriminalCaseT2213.[1]

ComplainantRufinoP.Buena(Rufino)testifiedthatataround7:00intheeveningonJune25,2000,heandJesus
Paulite(Jesus)wentouttobuycigarettesatanearbystore.Ontheirway,JesustookaleakbytheroadsidewithRufino
waitingnearby.Fromnowhere,ArnelsneakedbehindandstruckRufinotwiceontheheadwithahugestone,about15
inchesindiameter.RufinofellunconsciousasJesusfled.

AnaniasJallores(Ananias)testifiedthathewaswalkinghomewhenhesawRufinolyingbytheroadside.Ananiastried
tohelpbutsomeonestruckhimwithsomethinghardontherighttemple,knockinghimout.HelaterlearnedthatArnel
hadhithim.

Paciano Alano (Paciano) testified that he saw the whole incident since he happened to be smoking outside his
house.HesoughtthehelpofabarangaytanodandtheybroughtRufinotothehospital.

Dr.AlbertBellezaissuedaMedicoLegalCertificate[2]showingthatRufinosufferedtwolaceratedwoundsonthe
forehead,alongthehairlinearea.ThedoctortestifiedthattheseinjurieswereseriousandpotentiallyfatalbutRufino
chosetogohomeafterinitialtreatment.

ThedefensepresentedArnelandDiomedesPaulite(Diomedes).Arnelclaimedselfdefense.Hetestifiedthathewason
hiswayhomethateveningwhenhemetRufino,Jesus,andAnaniaswhowereallquitedrunk.ArnelaskedRufino
wherehesupposedtheMayorofTigaonwasbut,ratherthanreply,Rufinopushedhim,causinghisfall. Jesusand
AnaniasthenboxedArnelseveraltimesontheback.RufinotriedtostabArnelbutmissed.Thelatterpickedupastone
and,defendinghimself,struckRufinoontheheadwithit.WhenAnaniassawthis,hechargedtowardsArnelandtried
tostabhimwithagaff.ArnelwasabletoavoidtheattackandhitAnaniaswiththesamestone.Arnelthenfledandhid
inhissistershouse.OnSeptember4,2000,hevoluntarilysurrenderedattheTigaonMunicipalPoliceStation.

Diomedestestifiedthathe,Rufino,Jesus,andAnaniasattendedapreweddingpartyonthenightoftheincident.His
threecompanionswerealldrunk.Onhiswayhome,DiomedessawthethreeengagedinheatedargumentwithArnel.
OnJuly1,2005theRTCrenderedjudgment,findingArnelguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtoffrustratedhomicideand
sentencedhimtosufferimprisonmentfromtwoyearsandfourmonthsofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,tosix
yearsandonedayofprisionmayor,asmaximum.Sincethemaximumprobationableimprisonmentunderthelawwas
onlyuptosixyears,Arneldidnotqualifyforprobation.

ArnelappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA),invokingselfdefenseand,alternatively,seekingconvictionforthelesser
crimeofattemptedhomicidewiththeconsequentreductionofthepenaltyimposedonhim.TheCAentirelyaffirmed

theRTCdecisionbutdeletedtheawardforlostincomeintheabsenceofevidencetosupportit. [3]Notsatisfied,Arnel
comestothisCourtonpetitionforreview.

In the course of its deliberation on the case, the Court required Arnel and the Solicitor General to submit their
respectivepositionsonwhetherornot,assumingArnelcommittedonlythelessercrimeofattemptedhomicidewithits
imposablepenaltyofimprisonmentoffourmonthsofarrestomayor, as minimum, totwoyearsandfourmonths
ofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum,hecouldstillapplyforprobationuponremandofthecasetothetrialcourt.

BothcompliedwithArneltakingthepositionthatheshouldbeentitledtoapplyforprobationincasetheCourtmetes
outanewpenaltyonhimthatmakeshisoffenseprobationable.Thelanguageandspiritoftheprobationlawwarrants
suchastand.TheSolicitorGeneral,ontheotherhand,arguesthatundertheProbationLawnoapplicationforprobation
canbeentertainedoncetheaccusedhasperfectedhisappealfromthejudgmentofconviction.

TheIssuesPresented

Thecaseessentiallypresentsthreeissues:

1.WhetherornotArnelactedinselfdefensewhenhestruckRufinoontheheadwithastone;

2.Assuminghedidnotactinselfdefense,whetherornotArnelisguiltyoffrustratedhomicide;and

3.GivenafindingthatArnelisentitledtoconvictionforaloweroffenseandareducedprobationablepenalty,whether
ornothemaystillapplyforprobationonremandofthecasetothetrialcourt.

TheCourtsRulings
One.ArnelclaimsthatRufino,Jesus,andAnaniasattackedhimfirstandthathemerelyactedinselfdefensewhenhe
hitRufinobackwithastone.

Whentheaccusedinvokesselfdefense,hebearstheburdenofshowingthathewaslegallyjustifiedinkillingthe
victimorinflictinginjurytohim.Theaccusedmustestablishtheelementsofselfdefensebyclearandconvincing
evidence.Whensuccessful,theotherwisefeloniousdeedwouldbeexcused,mainlypredicatedonthelackofcriminal
intentoftheaccused.[4]

In homicide, whether consummated, frustrated, or attempted, selfdefense requires (1) that the person whom the
offenderkilledorinjuredcommittedunlawfulaggression;(2)thattheoffenderemployedmeansthatisreasonably
necessarytopreventorrepeltheunlawfulaggression;and(3)thatthepersondefendinghimselfdidnotactwith
sufficientprovocation.[5]

Ifthevictimdidnotcommitunlawfulaggressionagainsttheaccused,thelatterhasnothingtopreventorrepelandthe
othertworequisitesofselfdefensewouldhavenobasisforbeingappreciated.Unlawfulaggressioncontemplatesan
actual,sudden,andunexpectedattackoranimminentdangerofsuchattack.Amerethreateningorintimidatingattitude
isnotenough.Thevictimmustattacktheaccusedwithactualphysicalforceorwithaweapon.[6]

Here,thelowercourtsfoundthatArnelfailedtoprovetheelementofunlawfulaggression.HealonetestifiedthatJesus
andAnaniasrainedfistblowsonhimandthatRufinoandAnaniastriedtostabhim. NoonecorroboratedArnels
testimonythatitwasRufinowhostartedit.Arnelsonlyotherwitness,Diomedes,merelytestifiedthathesawthose
involvedhavingaheatedargumentinthemiddleofthestreet.Arneldidnotsubmitanymedicalcertificatetoprovehis
pointthathesufferedinjuriesinthehandsofRufinoandhiscompanions.[7]

In contrast, the three witnessesJesus, Paciano, and Ananiastestified that Arnel was the aggressor.Although their
versionsweremottledwithinconsistencies,thesedonotdetractfromtheircorestory.Thewitnesseswereoneinwhat
Arneldidandwhenandhowhedidit.ComparedtoArnelstestimony,theprosecutionsversionismorebelievableand
consistentwithreality,hencedeservingcredence.[8]

Two.ButgiventhatArnel,theaccused,wasindeedtheaggressor,wouldhebeliableforfrustratedhomicidewhenthe
woundsheinflictedonRufino,hisvictim,werenotfatalandcouldnothaveresultedindeathasinfactitdidnot?

Themainelementofattemptedorfrustratedhomicideistheaccusedsintenttotakehisvictimslife.Theprosecution
hastoprovethisclearlyandconvincinglytoexcludeeverypossibledoubtregardinghomicidalintent. [9]Andtheintent

tokillisofteninferredfrom,amongotherthings,themeanstheoffenderusedandthenature,location,andnumberof
woundsheinflictedonhisvictim.[10]

Here, Arnel struck Rufino on the head with a huge stone.The blow was so forceful that it knocked Rufino
out.Consideringthegreatsizeofhisweapon,theimpactitproduced,andthelocationofthewoundsthatArnel
inflictedonhisvictim,theCourtisconvincedthatheintendedtokillhim.

TheCourtisinclined, however, toholdArnelguiltyonlyofattempted, notfrustrated,homicide.InPalaganasv.

People,[11]weruledthatwhentheaccusedintendedtokillhisvictim,asshownbyhisuseofadeadlyweaponandthe
woundsheinflicted,butthevictimdidnotdiebecauseoftimelymedicalassistance,thecrimeisfrustratedmurderor
frustratedhomicide.Ifthevictimswoundsarenotfatal,thecrimeisonlyattemptedmurderorattemptedhomicide.

Thus,theprosecutionmustestablishwithcertaintythenature,extent,depth,andseverityofthevictimswounds.While
Dr.Bellezatestifiedthatheadinjuriesarealwaysveryserious, [12]hecouldnotcategoricallysaythatRufinoswoundsin
thiscasewerefatal.Thus:

Q:Doctor,alltheinjuriesintheheadarefatal?
A:No,alltraumaticinjuriesarepotentiallytreated.

Q:Butinthecaseofthevictimwhenyoutreatedhimthewoundsactuallyarenotfatalonthatveryday?
A:I could not say, with the treatment we did, prevent from becoming fatal.But on that case the patient
preferredtogohomeatthattime.

Q:Thefindingsalsoindicatedinthemedicalcertificateonlyreferstothelengthofthewoundnotthedepthof
thewound?
A:Whenyousaylaceratedwound,theentirelengthofthelayerofscalp.

Q:Soyoucouldnotfindoutanyabrasion?
A:Itisdifferentlacerationandabrasionsooncetheskinisbrokenupthelabelofthefrontallo[b]e,wealways
callitlaceratedwound,butinthatkindofwound,wedidnotmeasurethedepth.[13]

Indeed,Rufinohadtwolacerationsonhisforeheadbuttherewasnoindicationthathisskullincurredfractureorthathe
bledinternallyasaresultofthepoundingofhishead.Thewoundswerenotsodeep,theymerelyrequiredsuturing,and
wereestimatedtohealinsevenoreightdays.Dr.Bellezafurthertestified:

Q:So,inthemedicalcertificatethewoundswillnotrequiresurgery?
A:Yes,Madam.

Q:Theinjuriesareslight?
A:7to8dayslong,whatwearelookingisnotmuch,wegiveantibioticsandantit[e]tanustheproblemthe
contusionthatoccurredinthebrain.

xxxx

Q:Whatmedicalinterventionthatyouundertake?
A:Wegiveantibiotics,YourHonor,antit[e]tanusandsuturingthewounds.

Q:Forhowmanydaysdidhestayinthehospital?
A:Headinjuryatleastbeobservedwithin24hours,butsomeofthemwouldrathergohomeandthencome
back.

Q:Sothepatientdidnotstay24hoursinthehospital?
A:No,YourHonor.

Q:Didhecomebacktoyouafter24hours?
A:Iamnotsurewhenhecamebackforfollowup.[14]


Takeninitsentirety,thereisadearthofmedicalevidenceonrecordtosupporttheprosecutionsclaimthatRufino
wouldhavediedwithouttimelymedicalintervention.Thus,theCourtfindsArnelliableonlyforattemptedhomicide
andentitledtothemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrender.

Three.Ordinarily,Arnelwouldnolongerbeentitledtoapplyforprobation,hehavingappealedfromthejudgmentof
theRTCconvictinghimforfrustratedhomicide.

But,theCourtfindsArnelguiltyonlyofthelessercrimeofattemptedhomicideandholdsthatthemaximumofthe
penaltyimposedonhimshouldbeloweredtoimprisonmentoffourmonthsofarrestomayor,asminimum,totwo
yearsandfourmonthsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Withthisnewpenalty,itwouldbebutfairtoallowhim
therighttoapplyforprobationuponremandofthecasetotheRTC.

SomeintheCourtdisagrees.Theycontendthatprobationisamereprivilegegrantedbythestateonlytoqualified
convictedoffenders.Section4oftheprobationlaw(PD968)provides:Thatnoapplicationforprobationshallbe
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. [15]Since Arnel
appealedhisconvictionforfrustratedhomicide,heshouldbedeemedpermanentlydisqualifiedfromapplyingfor
probation.

But,firstly,whileitistruethatprobationisamereprivilege,thepointisnotthatArnelhastherighttosuchprivilege;
hecertainlydoesnothave.Whathehasistherighttoapplyforthatprivilege.TheCourtfindsthathismaximumjail
termshouldonlybe2yearsand4months.IftheCourtallowshimtoapplyforprobationbecauseofthelowered
penalty,itisstilluptothetrialjudgetodecidewhetherornottogranthimtheprivilegeofprobation,takinginto
accountthefullcircumstancesofhiscase.

Secondly, it is true that under the probation law the accused who appeals from the judgment of conviction is
disqualifiedfromavailinghimselfofthebenefitsofprobation.But,asithappens,twojudgmentsofconvictionhave
beenmetedouttoArnel:one,aconvictionforfrustratedhomicidebytheregionaltrialcourt,nowsetaside;and,two,a
convictionforattemptedhomicidebytheSupremeCourt.
IftheCourtchoosestogobythedissentingopinionshardposition,itwillapplytheprobationlawonArnelbasedon
thetrialcourtsannulledjudgmentagainsthim.Hewillnotbeentitledtoprobationbecauseoftheseverepenaltythat
suchjudgmentimposedonhim.More,theSupremeCourtsjudgmentofconvictionforalesseroffenseandalighter
penaltywillalsohavetobendovertothetrialcourtsjudgmentevenifthishasbeenfoundinerror.And,worse,Arnel
willnowalsobemadetopayforthetrialcourtserroneousjudgmentwiththeforfeitureofhisrighttoapplyfor
probation.Angkabayoangnagkasala,anghagupitaysakalabaw(thehorseerrs,thecarabaogetsthewhip).Whereis
justicethere?

ThedissentingopinionalsoexpressesapprehensionthatallowingArneltoapplyforprobationwoulddilutetheruling
ofthisCourtinFranciscov.CourtofAppeals[16]thattheprobationlawrequiresthatanaccusedmustnothaveappealed
hisconvictionbeforehecanavailhimselfofprobation.ButthereisahugedifferencebetweenFranciscoandthiscase.

InFrancisco,theMetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC)ofMakatifoundtheaccusedguiltyofgraveoraldefamationand
sentencedhimtoaprisontermofoneyearandonedaytooneyearandeightmonthsofprisioncorreccional,aclearly
probationablepenalty.Probationwashistoask!Still,hechosetoappeal,seekinganacquittal,henceclearlywaiving
hisrighttoapplyforprobation.Whentheacquittaldidnotcome,hewantedprobation.TheCourtwouldnotofcourse
lethim.Itservedhimrightthathewantedtosavehiscakeandeatittoo.Hecertainlycouldnothavebothappealand
probation.

TheProbationLaw,saidtheCourtinFrancisco,requiresthatanaccusedmustnothaveappealedhisconvictionbefore
hecanavailhimselfofprobation.Thisrequirementoutlawstheelementofspeculationonthepartoftheaccusedto
wagerontheresultofhisappealthatwhenhisconvictionisfinallyaffirmedonappeal,themomentoftruthwellnighat
hand, and the service of his sentence inevitable, henowappliesforprobationasanescapehatchthusrendering
nugatorytheappellatecourtsaffirmanceofhisconviction.[17]

Here,however,Arneldidnotappealfromajudgmentthatwouldhaveallowedhimtoapplyforprobation. Hedidnot
haveachoicebetweenappealandprobation.Hewasnotinapositiontosay,Bytakingthisappeal,Ichoosenotto
applyforprobation.Thestiffpenaltythatthetrialcourtimposedonhimdeniedhimthatchoice.Thus,arulingthat
wouldallowArneltonowseekprobationunderthisCourtsgreatlydiminishedpenaltywillnotdilutethesoundruling

inFrancisco.Itremainsthatthosewhowillappealfromjudgmentsofconviction,whentheyhavetheoptiontotryfor
probation,forfeittheirrighttoapplyforthatprivilege.

Besides,inappealinghiscase,Arnelraisedtheissueofcorrectnessofthepenaltyimposedonhim.Heclaimedthatthe
evidence at best warranted his conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, homicide, which crime called for a
probationablepenalty.Inaway,therefore,Arnelsoughtfromthebeginningtobringdownthepenaltytothelevel
wherethelawwouldallowhimtoapplyforprobation.

Inarealsense,theCourtsfindingthatArnelwasguilty,notoffrustratedhomicide,butonlyofattemptedhomicide,is
anoriginalconvictionthatforthefirsttimeimposesonhimaprobationablepenalty.HadtheRTCdonehimrightfrom
thestart,itwouldhavefoundhimguiltyofthecorrectoffenseandimposedonhimtherightpenaltyoftwoyearsand
fourmonthsmaximum.ThiswouldhaveaffordedArneltherighttoapplyforprobation.
TheProbationLawneverintendedtodenyanaccusedhisrighttoprobationthroughnofaultofhis.Theunderlying
philosophyofprobationisoneofliberalitytowardstheaccused.Suchphilosophyisnotservedbyaharshandstringent
interpretation of the statutory provisions.[18]As Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in his dissent inFrancisco, the
ProbationLawmustnotberegardedasamereprivilegetobegiventotheaccusedonlywhereitclearlyappearshe
comeswithinitsletter;todosowouldbetodisregardtheteachinginmanycasesthattheProbationLawshouldbe
appliedinfavoroftheaccusednotbecauseitisacriminallawbuttoachieveitsbeneficentpurpose.[19]

OneofthosewhodissentfromthisdecisionpointsoutthatallowingArneltoapplyforprobationafterheappealed
fromthetrialcourtsjudgmentofconvictionwouldnotbeconsistentwiththeprovisionofSection2thattheprobation
lawshouldbeinterpretedtoprovideanopportunityforthereformationofapenitentoffender.AnaccusedlikeArnel
whoappealsfromajudgmentconvictinghim,itisclaimed,showsnopenitence.

ThismaybetrueifthetrialcourtmetedouttoArnelacorrectjudgmentofconviction. Here,however,itconvicted
Arnelofthewrongcrime,frustratedhomicide,thatcarriedapenaltyinexcessof6years.HowcantheCourtexpect
himtofeelpenitentoveracrime,whichastheCourtnowfinds,hedidnotcommit?Heonlycommittedattempted
homicidewithitsmaximumpenaltyof2yearsand4months.

Ironically,iftheCourtdeniesArneltherighttoapplyforprobationunderthereducedpenalty,itwouldbesendinghim
straightbehindbars.Itwouldberobbinghimofthechancetoinsteadundergoreformationasapenitentoffender,
defeatingtheverypurposeoftheprobationlaw.
Atanyrate,whatisclearisthat,hadtheRTCdonewhatwasrightandimposedonArnelthecorrectpenaltyoftwo
yearsandfourmonthsmaximum,hewouldhavehadtherighttoapplyforprobation.Noonecouldsaywithcertainty
thathewouldhaveavailedhimselfoftherighthadtheRTCdonerightbyhim.Theideamaynotevenhavecrossedhis
mindpreciselysincethepenaltyhegotwasnotprobationable.

Thequestioninthiscaseisultimatelyoneoffairness.IsitfairtodenyArneltherighttoapplyforprobationwhenthe
new penaltythat theCourt imposeson himis, unlike theone erroneouslyimposed bythe trialcourt, subject to
probation?

WHEREFORE,theCourtPARTIALLYGRANTSthepetition,MODIFIEStheDecisiondatedJuly31,2007ofthe
CourtofAppealsinCAG.R. CR29639,FINDSpetitionerArnelColinaresGUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt of
attemptedhomicide,andSENTENCEShimtosufferanindeterminatepenaltyfromfourmonthsofarrestomayor,as
minimum,totwoyearsandfourmonthsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum,andtopayRufinoP.Buenatheamount
ofP20,000.00asmoraldamages,withoutprejudicetopetitionerapplyingforprobationwithin15daysfromnoticethat
therecordofthecasehasbeenremandedforexecutiontotheRegionalTrialCourtofSanJose,CamarinesSur,in
CriminalCaseT2213.

SOORDERED.