SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197731. July 6, 2015.]

HERMIE OLARTE y TARUG, and RUBEN OLAVARIO y MAUNAO,
petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, *** J :
p

Petitioners Hermie Olarte y Tarug (Olarte) and Ruben Olavario y Maunao

(Olavario), together with Salvador Pasquin y Marco (Pasquin), were charged
with the crime of frustrated homicide in an Information that reads as follows:
That on or about September 15, 2002 in Valenzuela City and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without
any justiable cause and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one EUGENE VILLOSTAS y
MARTINEZ, thus performing all the acts of execution which would
constitute the crime of Homicide as a consequence but which
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason or causes independent of
the will of the herein accused, that is, due to the timely, able and ecient
medical attendance rendered to the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

All the three accused posted 2 bail. But since Pasquin jumped bail, only
petitioners were arraigned on June 25, 2003 where they pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged. 3 Trial thereafter ensued.
The prosecution averred that in the early morning of September 15,
2002, the victim Eugene M. Villostas (Villostas) was fetched by his halfbrother, Charlie Penilla (Penilla), from a drinking session. On their way home,
Villostas decided to buy cigarettes from a nearby videoke bar at Gen. T. de
Leon, Valenzuela City. Inside the bar, however, three men who belonged to a
group then singing and drinking suddenly stabbed him on dierent parts of his
body. They only stopped when bystanders started throwing stones at them.
This whole incident was witnessed by Penilla who was then only seven to
eight arms length away from the crime scene.
Barangay tanods immediately responded and brought the malefactors to
the Barangay Hall where they were later identied as petitioners and their coaccused Pasquin. Meanwhile, Villostas was rushed to the Valenzuela General
Hospital where he was treated by Dr. Jolou A. Pascual (Dr. Pascual).
During trial, Dr. Pascual testied that Villostas sustained multiple stab
wounds described as follows:
Multiple Stab Wound
5cm 4th ICS anterior axillary, left 3.5 cm 5th ICS
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

5cm curvilinear subcostal mid axillary, right

2cm anterior shoulder, left
4cm anterior shoulder, left 4

According to him, all these wounds could have caused Villostas' death
were it not for the timely medical attention given him. 5
The defense, on the other hand, alleged that at around 2:00 o' clock in
the morning of September 15, 2002, while petitioners, Pasquin and some
other companions were having a drinking spree inside a videoke bar on Gen. T.
De Leon, Valenzuela City, several persons threw stones at them hitting Olarte
and another companion. Their group thus disbanded. While most of them
headed straight home, Olarte, together with a certain Joni, went to the
Barangay Hall to have the stoning incident entered in its blotter. Upon arrival
thereat, however, they were surprised that Olarte, Olavario and Pasquin were
being implicated in a stabbing incident. The three were then brought to the
Valenzuela General Hospital where Villostas identied them as his assailants.
Thereafter, they were arrested and detained at the city jail.
On April 27, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City,
Branch 172, rendered its Decision 6 nding petitioners guilty as charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered nding Hermie Olarte
y Tarug and Ruben Olavario y Maunao guilty beyond reasonable doubt
as PRINCIPALS [in] the crime of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE and [are]
hereby sentenced . . . to suer an imprisonment of two (2) years, 4
(four) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as maximum.
They are also ordered to pay jointly and solidarily the victim Eugene
Villostas y Martinez the amount of Php22,462.05 for medical expenses
as actual damages, Php20,000.00 as moral damages and costs of suit.
Since . . . accused Salvador Pasquin y Marco has not yet been
arrested and arraigned despite the issuance of order of arrest on
November 8, 2002, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against said
accused Salvador Pasquin y Marco. Meantime, let the case against him
be archived to be retrieved as soon as he is arrested.
SO ORDERED.

Petitioners led a Notice of Appeal

Order 9 of May 13, 2009.

which was granted by the RTC in its

Before the Court of Appeals (CA), 10 petitioners questioned the credibility

of Villostas and Penilla as prosecution witnesses. They pointed out
inconsistencies in their testimonies respecting the victim's degree of
intoxication at the time of the incident, the kind or brand of liquor that he
imbibed, and the length of time that he had been drinking immediately prior
thereto. Petitioners argued that such inconsistencies rendered doubtful their
identication as the culprits by said prosecution witnesses.
The CA, in its February 9, 2011 Decision, 11 debunked petitioners'
arguments as it found the inconsistencies pointed out by them as relating to
mere minor details. On the other hand, it found no cogent reason to deviate
from the ndings of the trial court as regards petitioners' culpability, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the April 27, 2009 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, in Criminal Case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

No. 759-V-02, convicting the [petitioners] of the crime of Frustrated

Homicide is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

12

Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration

Resolution 14 dated July 13, 2011.

13

was likewise denied in a

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari 15 under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court where petitioners raise the following errors:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING PETITIONERS OF THE
CRIME OF FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE
ON [RECORD] THAT NEITHER OF THE PETITIONERS WAS THE AUTHOR
OF THE CRIME. 16

Petitioners insist that the testimonies of Villostas and Penilla are devoid
of credibility as they contain several inconsistencies. These inconsistencies
rendered doubtful the said witnesses' identication of petitioners as the
assailants. Petitioners also point out that they themselves went to the
authorities to report the incident. This, according to them, negates their
involvement in the crime because had they been the real perpetrators, they
would not dare report the matter to the authorities. Moreover, they contend
that the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the testimony of one Rodel
Roque who categorically stated on the witness stand that he saw Villostas
being stabbed by only one person and that person was neither of the
petitioners. In view of these, petitioners pray that the assailed CA Decision be
reversed and set aside and that they be acquitted of the crime charged.
Our Ruling
The Petition must be denied.
Suce it to state that the errors raised by the petitioners are all
"appreciation of evidence" errors or factual errors which are not within the
province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court had
already explained in Batistis v. People 17 that:
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 122, and Section 9, Rule 45, of the
Rules of Court, the review on appeal of a decision in a criminal case,
wherein the CA imposes a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment, is by petition for review on certiorari.
A petition for review on certiorari raises only questions of law.
Sec. 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court , explicitly so provides, viz[.]:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court . A
party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, nal
order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial
Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may le
with the Supreme Court a veried petition for review on
certiorari. 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. The petitioner may seek the same
provisional remedies by veried motion led in the same
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.

18

Here, the assigned errors, requiring as they do a re-appreciation and reexamination of the trial evidence, are evidentiary and factual in nature. 19 The
petition must therefore be denied on this basis because "one, the petition for
review thereby violates the limitation of the issues to only legal questions,
and, two, the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not disturb the factual
ndings of the CA, unless they were mistaken, absurd, speculative, conicting,
tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the ndings reached by
the court of origin," 20 which was not shown to be the case here.
At any rate, the Court observes that the CA correctly armed the RTC's
conviction of petitioners for frustrated homicide. The elements of frustrated
homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his
use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal
wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of
the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code exist. 21 These elements were proved during trial. First, direct and
positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses established that Villostas
sustained seven stab wounds on vital parts of his body caused by a pointed
sharp object. Plainly, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by
him demonstrate petitioners' intent to kill. Next, the injuries suered by
Villostas were all fatal. Particularly critical were the 5-centimeter wound
below his left armpit, the 3.5-centimeter wound on the mid-part of his left
chest which required inserting a tube thereon to drain blood so as not to
impede his breathing, and the 5-centimeter stab wound on the right side of
his abdomen which also injured his liver. 22 As testied to by Dr. Pascual,
Villostas would have succumbed to death due to the said injuries if not for the
timely medical attention. Finally, no qualifying circumstance for murder was
alleged in the Information to have attended the commission of the crime.
The Court, however, notes that while the penalty imposed upon
petitioners is also proper, there is a need to modify the awards made in favor
of Villostas. The actual damages awarded by the RTC was only P22,642.05.
Hence, there is a need to award P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of
actual damages in a lesser amount. 23 Also, pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence, the award of moral damages must be increased from
P20,000.00 to P25,000.00 24 All these awards shall earn interest at the legal
rate of six percent (6%) per annum to commence from the date of nality of
this Resolution until fully paid. 25
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 9,
2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32640 which armed the
April 27, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch
172 in Criminal Case No. 759-V-02 convicting petitioners Hermie Olarte y
Tarug and Ruben Olavario y Maunao of the crime of frustrated homicide is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that the victim Eugene Villostas y
Martinez is awarded (1) temperate damages of P25,000.00 in lieu of actual
damages; (2) moral damages in an increased amount of P25,000.00; and that
(3) the said awards shall be subject to interest at the legal rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of nality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

Peralta, * Bersamin, ** Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*

Per Special Order No. 2088 dated July 1, 2015.

**
***

Per Special Order No. 2079 dated June 29, 2015.

Per Special Order No. 2087 (Revised) dated July 1, 2015.

1. Records, p. 1; the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 759-V-02.

2. Id. at 6, 20, and 37.
3. Id. at 59.
4. TSN dated September 17, 2004, pp. 11-20.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 152-158; penned by Presiding Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones.
7. Id. at 158.
8. Id. at 161.
9. Id. at 165.
10. The appeal before the CA was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 32640.
11. CA rollo, id. at 170-184; penned by Associate Justice Marior P. Punzalan-Castillo
and concurred in by Associate Justices Josena Guevara-Salonga and
Franchito N. Diamante.
12. Id. at 183.
13. Id. at 186-201.
14. Id. at 212-213.
15. Rollo, pp. 3-35.
16. Id. at 11.
17. 623 Phil. 246 (2009).
18. Id. at 254; citations omitted, emphasis and italics in the original.
19. Id. at 255.
20. Id.
21. Josue v. People, G.R. No. 199579, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 675, 682.
22. TSN dated September 17, 2004, pp. 14-18.
23. People v. Martin, 588 Phil. 355, 365 (2008).
24. Abella v. People, G.R. No. 198400, October 7, 2013, 706 SCRA 781, 796-797.
25. Id. at 797.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com