THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135222. March 04, 2005]

PETER ANDRADA, petitioner, PHILIPPINES, respondent. DE
SANDO!AL"G#TIERRE$, J.%

vs.

THE

PEOPLE

OF

THE

ISION

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Peter Andrada, petitioner, assailin t!e De"ision of t!e &ourt of Appeals dated Septe'ber $(, $))* in &A+,-R&R No- $.(.$ and its Resolution dated Au ust $0, $))(#$% #/%

In an Infor'ation dated 1anuary *, $)(*, t!e Offi"e of t!e &ity Prose"utor of Ba uio &ity "!ar ed petitioner wit! frustrated 'urder "o''itted as follows2

That on or about the 24th day of September 1986, in the City of Baguio, Philippines and ithin the !urisdi"tion of this #onorable Court, the abo$e%named a""used ith intent to &ill, ith e$ident premeditation and ith trea"hery, did then and there illfully, unla fully, and feloniously atta"&, assault and ha"& one '(S)*+, -.)(+, on the head t i"e ith a bolo thereby infli"ting upon latter/ ha"&ing ound, head, resulting in 10 s&ull and s"alp a$ulsion $erte12 20 depressed "omminuted s&ull fra"ture, right parieto o""ipital ith signifi"ant brain la"eration2 operation done2 "ranie"tomy2 $erte1 debridement2 "ranie"tomy2 right parieto o""ipital2 dural repair2 debridement, thus performing all the a"ts of e1e"ution hi"h ould produ"e the "rime of 3urder as a "onse4uen"e thereof, but ne$ertheless, the felony as not "onsummated by reason of "auses independent of the ill of the a""used, that is, by the timely medi"al attendan"e e1tended to 'rsenio -gerio hi"h pre$ented his death5 C,*T('(6 T, 7'85
#0%

3!en arrai ned on 4ebruary ), $)(*, petitioner, wit! t!e assistan"e of "ounsel de parte, pleaded not uilty to t!e "ri'e "!ar ed- T!e !earin of t!e "ase ensued5viden"e for t!e prose"ution s!ows t!at on Septe'ber /0, $)(6, at around $$207 in t!e evenin , T8S t- Teodolfo Su'abon , of t!e defun"t P!ilippine &onstabulary 9P&:, was restin in t!e P& barra";s at &a'p Dado Dan wa, <a Trinidad, Ben uet w!en one Ro''el Al"ate "alled up re=uestin poli"e assistan"e- Al"ate "lai'ed t!at a roup of persons was suspi"iously roa'in around !is boardin !ouse in 4er uson Street, Ba uio &ity-

i-e-. bein fatal.Su'abon approa"!ed t!e' but petitioner ran away. to t!e St. S t. approa"!ed t!e for'er and s"olded !i'. !e !eard &pl. to t!e "a'p at around $2$. went to Al"ete?s boardin !ouse.4ran"is"o 4ernandeA. "enti'eters wide. 'oanin in pain.Arsenio > erio.T!ey !ad pistols tu".D around .Su'abon turned around.T!e se"ond was a depressed fra"ture. petitioner pulled out !is bolo.aw. identifyin !i'self as a P& non+"o''issioned offi"er. t!e "!oppin off of a part of t!e vi"ti'?s s. slapped !is fa"e several ti'es and pointed t!eir uns to !is !ead.T!ey ordered "offee and sandwi"!es3!ile t!ey were waitin to be served. !erein petitioner. seated about a 'eter away.ed t!e 'iti atin "ir"u'stan"e of voluntary surrender. to t!e restaurant w!ere t!ey re"overed t!e bolo used in !a". found on t!e ri !t parieto occipital area of t!e s..His version is t!at !e and one Ro'y Ra'os were drin.in beer wit! a !ospitality irl na'ed C<iAaD inside @orlow?s Restaurant. later identified as Peter Andrada.Su'abon ?s instru"tion.in to !er. Ba uio &ity.Su'abon ?s advi"e for !e paid !is bill and left t!e restaurant wit! !is "o'panions.> erio.He .3!ile &pl> erio was tal. advised petitioner to pay !is bill and o !o'e as !e was apparently drun.3itnesses to t!e in"ident were interviewed by t!e poli"e and t!ey pointed to petitioner as t!e "ulpritDr.ull5it!er wound.T!e first was a Cs"alpin avulsion.<ouis >niversity Hospital.an Street.S t.Su'abon was payin !is bill. wrapped in a newspaper. for a sna".in !i' on t!e !ead wit! a bolo. !e learned t!at petitioner was arrested in a waitin s!ed at t!e "orner of &a'das Road and @a saysay AvenueT!e arrestin offi"ers t!en brou !t petitioner ba". would !ave "aused t!e deat! of t!e vi"ti' !ad it not been for a ti'ely 'edi"al treat'ent. found t!at t!e vi"ti' suffered two 9/: 'aBor inBuries. fro' !is waist and swun it at t!e two 'ilitary 'en. t!e vi"ti'.Be"ause of t!e inBuries !e sustained.3it!out any warnin or provo"ation. w!ile S t. a wo'an passed by t!eir table.illed.T!ey "ursed !i' and t!reatened to su''arily eFe"ute !i' be"ause !e was Cso boastful-D &pl.a"es and &pl. !e saw &pl. t!e suspi"ious persons !ave leftOn t!eir way ba". w!o' !e identified as &pl.ull.. S t. arrivin t!ere past 'idni !t.Su'abon reported t!e in"ident to t!e poli"e station at &a'das Road and t!ereafter pro"eeded to t!e !ospital.4earful t!at !e 'i !t be .Su'abon "!ased t!e' but to no avail>pon S t. in t!e 'ornin . w!en t!ree 'ilitary 'en o""upied t!e table neFt to t!e'.However.Petitioner !eeded S t.Su'abon .> erio sprawled on t!e floor.Su'abon and two of !is "o'panions. t!e vi"ti' was transferred to t!e V<una Hospital in EueAon &ity. !e !as re'ained in"apable to re'e'ber or re"all visual stimuli or infor'ationPetitioner interposed self+defense and invo.Su'abin followed.After t!ree 90: days.S t. a""ordin to Al"ate.ed in t!eir waists.3!en S t.> erio. two of t!e 'en. a neuro+sur ery "onsultant.> erio t!en C"ollaredD !i' and dra ed !i' outside t!e restaurant.3!ile S t.S t.a"es brou !t &pl. approa"!ed !i'..in t!e vi"ti'. followed by a "o'panion.S t.> erio and S tSu'abon .Petitioner was !a". Bo. t!e roup dropped by @orlow?s Restaurant.3!en !e returned to t!e poli"e station.T!en S t. a 'an. about 6 "enti'eters wide.

-( ?40 6)'(S '*: T8. assu'in !e is uiltyOn t!e first issue..% T!e &ourt of Appeals. )+. . !e 'et !is 'ot!er a""o'panied by a poli"e'an.* 'PP)'7): 9(. months and 2.T!ey t!en pro"eeded to t!e poli"e sub+station at @a saysay Avenue w!ere !e surrenderedAfter !earin .3 +S #)()B6 '99+(3): 8+T# T#) 3..He "ontends t!at !is "ounsel2 . t!us2 8#)()9. representing part of the $i"tim>s e1penses for medi"al ser$i"es and medi"ine. . found t!at petitioner is entitled to t!e privile ed 'iti atin "ir"u'stan"e of 'inority as !e was only $* years. petitioner ar ues t!at t!e &ourt of Appeals erred in not !oldin t!at t!e trial "ourt violated !is "onstitutional ri !t to due pro"ess.ed to see if !is 'ot!er or rand'ot!er was at !o'e so eit!er of t!e' "ould assist !i' in surrenderin to t!e poli"e. '* +*:)T)(3+*'T) P)*'7T6 .(:)():5 #G% On appeal. 'S 3+*+3-3. and to pay the "osts5 S.(:)():5 #.. $))(Hen"e.9 9.On !is way to surrender to t!e poli"e. in 'odifyin t!e i'posable penalty. t!e trial "ourt rendered its De"ision. premises "onsidered.:+9+C'T+.*T#S . 'S 3'<+3-35 S. t!e instant petitionT!e issues for our resolution are2 9$: w!et!er petitioner?s ri !t to due pro"ess was violatedH 9/: w!et!er !is plea of self+defense is in orderH 90: w!et!er t!e "ri'e "o''itted is frustrated 'urder or frustrated !o'i"ideH and 9G: w!et!er !e is entitled to any 'iti atin "ir"u'stan"e. ) 'ont!s and /7 days old at t!e ti'e of t!e in"identPetitioner t!en filed a 'otion for re"onsideration..#T ?80 6)'(S '*: T8)*T6 ?2.().9 PRISION CORRECIONAL. ?20 3.(). days as 3'<+3-32 to indemnify the sum of P=..He "!e".But neit!er was present. 1.T!en !e ran to !is !ouse in &a'das Subdivision. days as 3+*+3-3 to 14 years. but t!is was denied by t!e Appellate &ourt in its Resolution dated Au ust $0. t!e &ourt of Appeals affir'ed wit! 'odifi"ation t!e trial "ourt?s De"ision.0 :'6S .5. T#) :)C+S+.did not see if !e !it any of t!e'. t!us2 8#)()9. T. t!e dispositive portion of w!i"! is =uoted below. the Court finds the a""used P)T)( '*:(':' guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the "rime of frustrated murder5 The Court hereby senten"es him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 8 years and 2.* T#'T T#) 'PP)77'*T +S S)*T)*C): T.9 PRISION MAYOR.

Gimenez.If t!e latter?s perfor'an"e and "o'peten"e fell s!ort of petitioner?s eFpe"tations. we !eld t!at t!e arrai n'ent is not valid. we ordered a new trial after a s!owin t!at "ounsel for t!e a""used abandoned !er wit!out eFplanation#$7% In People v. t!en !e s!ould not bla'e eit!er t!e trial "ourt or t!e &ourt of AppealsIn "ri'inal "ases. t!e fa"t t!at !e did not "!oose to present ot!er witnesses did not affe"t any of petitioner?s substantial ri !ts- . we re'anded t!e "ase for re"eption of eviden"e after "ounsel for t!e a""used filed a de'urrer to t!e eviden"e notwit!standin t!at !is 'otion for leave of "ourt was denied. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals and People. we ordered a dis'issed appeal fro' a "onvi"tion for estafa to be reinstated after it was s!own t!at t!e failure to file t!e appellant?s brief on ti'e was due to s!eer irresponsibility on t!e part of appellant?s "ounsel#(% In De Guzman v.Petitioner was represented by "ounsel of !is "!oi"e.eneral 9OS.T!e a""used was not properly represented by "ounsel de officio sin"e !e 'erely "onferred wit! !is "lient for a few 'inutes and advised !i' to plead uilty to t!e "ri'e of rape wit! !o'i"ide#$$% None of t!e fore oin in"idents is present in t!e instant "ase.15 25 =5 45 9ailed to present all the itnesses ho "ould ha$e testified that he is inno"ent of the "rime "harged2 9ailed to present the medi"al "ertifi"ate sho ing the in!uries infli"ted upon him by the $i"tim2 :id not notify him to attend the hearing hen Sgt5 Sumabong as "ross% e1amined2 and 9ailed to submit a memorandum5 In su'. re"ords s!ow t!at "ounsel for petitioner a"tively parti"ipated in t!e "ross+eFa'ination of t!e witnesses for t!e prose"ution to test t!eir "redibility. ascuiguin. Sandiganbayan. t!us2 #*% ross ne li en"e or In US v. we re'anded a "ri'inal "ase for new trial w!en "ounsel for an a""used inadvertently substituted a plea of uilty for an earlier plea of not uilty. t!e ne li en"e or in"o'peten"e of "ounsel to be dee'ed ross 'ust !ave preBudi"ed t!e "onstitutional ri !t of an a""used to be !eard#6% In t!e followin "ases.: "ounters t!at t!ere was no violation of petitioner?s ri !t to due pro"ess. t!us pre"ludin t!e a""used to present !is eviden"e#)% In Reyes v. petitioner as"ribes ross in"o'peten"e or ross ne li en"e to !is "ounselT!e Offi"e of t!e Soli"itor . we !eld t!at t!ere !as been in"o'peten"e on t!e part of "ounsel for t!e a""used.At any rate. t!us resultin in t!e pre"ipitate "onvi"tion of !is "lientIn Aguilar v.Instead.

do not "onstitute ross in"o'peten"e or ne li en"e#$0% Havin found t!at petitioner?s "ounsel was not so inept or 'otivated by bad fait!.es of attorneys as to t!e "o'peten"y of a witness. h+2. &h' (a&&'r )a* *&+(( *'a&'. petitioner "ontends t!at assu'in !e is uilty.@ista. t!e suffi"ien"y. 'et!ods.Sin"e t!e first ele'ent of self+defense is not present !ere. !e "ould !ave se"ured t!e servi"es of a new "ounsel.in self+defense.ed t!e vi"ti'. !ow "ould t!ere be an unlawful a ression on t!e part of t!e vi"ti' at t!at instan"eI Petitioner?s bare assertions t!at t!e vi"ti' slapped !i'.ed a !and un at !i'. !e s!ould ta.4or if an a""used feels t!at !is "ounsel is inept. failure to introdu"e eviden"e. or so "areless and ne li ent of !is duties as to seriously preBudi"e t!e substantial ri !ts of petitioner or prevent !i' fro' puttin up a proper defense. w!ile h' -. or for's in t!e eFe"ution t!ereof w!i"! tend dire"tly and espe"ially to ensure t!e eFe"ution of t!e "ri'e wit!out ris. t!e a ressor was petitioner.He did not.'&+&+o/'r0 )a* 1'h+/. po.4or in invo.Hen"e. and to ar ue t!e "ase. t!e proper defense or t!e burden of proof. !as t!e burden to Bustify !is a"tT!e re=uisites of self+defense are2 9$: unlawful a ressionH 9/: reasonable ne"essity of t!e 'eans e'ployed to repel or prevent itH and 90: la".He insists t!at trea"!ery was not present. !e s!ould only be "onvi"ted of frustrated !o'i"ide. to su''on witnesses.e a"tion by dis"!ar in !i' earlier. it is in"u'bent upon !i' to prove by "lear and "onvin"in eviden"e t!at !e indeed a"ted in defense of !i'self.Rat!er.es of !is lawyer. relevan"y or irrelevan"y of "ertain eviden"e.His !a". t!e prose"ution establis!ed t!at it was petitioner w!o uneFpe"tedly atta". instead of waitin until an adverse de"ision is rendered and t!ereupon bla'e !is "ounsel for in"o'peten"e#$/% T!e lon +standin rule in t!is Burisdi"tion is t!at a "lient is bound by t!e 'ista. petitioner invo. not frustrated 'urder.% #$6% 3e find t!at t!e petitioner !as not ade=uately dis"!ar ed !is burden of provin t!e ele'ents of self+defense.in t!e vi"ti' was a Cspur+of+t!e+'o'entD a"t pro'pted by self+ preservation3e are not persuaded. su"! defense 'ust failOn t!e t!ird issue.&learly.ed t!e vi"ti' fro' be!ind.illin or seriously woundin t!e vi"ti' and t!us. t!e a""used ad'its .es self+defense.e "o''itted by !i'. and t!reatened to Csalva eD !i' were not duly proved by t!e eviden"e for t!e defense. to !i'self fro' any defense w!i"! t!e offended party 'i !t 'a.Havin de"ided to retain t!e servi"es of !is "ounsel durin t!e entire pro"eedin s.e3e a ree wit! t!e #$*% .T!e trial "ourt and t!e &ourt of Appeals found t!at at t!e ti'e !e !a". of suffi"ient provo"ation of t!e part of t!e person defendin !i'self#$.T!ere is alevosia w!en t!e offender "o''its any of t!e "ri'es a ainst persons e'ployin 'eans.If !e believed t!at !is "ounsel de parte was not "o'petent. said "ounsel 'i !t !ave valid reasons w!y !e did not "all to t!e witness stand t!ose witnesses3e note t!at petitioner was present durin t!e !earin .Besides. Indeed. we !old t!at !e is bound by t!e de"isions of !is "ounsel re ardin t!e "ondu"t of t!e "ase#$G% On t!e second issue. petitioner 'ust be dee'ed bound by any 'ista. unless t!ey preBudi"e t!e "lient and prevent !i' fro' properly presentin !is "ase.

&R No$.(.at . "C!airman#. April $$./76. !avin Bust finis!ed a 'eal at a late !our. t!e "ri'e "o''itted is frustrated 'urder. t!e vi"ti' was seated. /6* S&RA . P!il.at ./Reyes v. 1r-. was so sudden and uneFpe"ted t!at t!e vi"ti' !ad no opportunity eit!er to avert t!e atta".$$$6(/.-R. 9$))*:0G P!il.4or voluntary surrender to be appre"iated. eit!er be"ause !e a".His ba".$+.: . Corona.T!e De"ision of t!e &ourt of Appeals dated Septe'ber $(.Here. $))*. t!e surrender 'ust be *.lower "ourts t!at t!e petitioner planned to .No.at 6$+6/'d. wit!out warnin . t!e sa'e is in order4HEREFORE. /$. !ad it not been for ti'ely 'edi"al assistan"e. #$(% Anent t!e 'odifi"ation of t!e penalty by t!e &ourt of Appeals. after atta".6 9$)). t!e petition is D5NI5D.ValdeA.Penned by Asso"iate 1usti"e . t!en.ed !i' twi"e on !is !ead wit! a bolo.$ are A44IR@5D.At t!at ti'e. "on"ur- #$% Rollo at G$+. "on"urrin 'd.ill t!e vi"ti' wit! trea"!ery in 'ind. Panganiban. ran away.Per Asso"iate 1usti"e Salvador 1..% #6% #*% #(% #)% #$7% . 4ebruary 6.o/&a/'o3*. at .-R./.loria &. 00.1a uros 9retired: and Salvador 1.T!e atta".*G 9$)$6:0/7 P!il. t!e surrender was not spontaneous. not frustrated !o'i"ideOn t!e fourt! issue.G. a "ause not of t!e will of t!e petitioner.0+.'d. and Garcia. 'ade in su"! a 'anner t!at it s!ows t!e interest of t!e a""used to surrender un"onditionally to t!e aut!orities.Da"udao. !a". and "onsiderin furt!er t!e presen"e of trea"!ery.ValdeA. or to defend !i'self&onsiderin t!at petitioner !ad perfor'ed all t!e a"ts of eFe"ution w!i"! would !ave resulted in t!e deat! of t!e vi"ti'.$70/*6. $))* and its Resolution dated Au ust $0. $))6. &&.in t!e vi"ti'..&osts a ainst petitionerSO ORDERED. 1r'd. Carpio$%orales .6 S&RA $*$ . $))( in &A+. Court of Appeals.-R.G.Paras 9de"eased: and "on"urred in by Asso"iate 1usti"es <ourdes J-T.nowled es !is uilt or wis!es to save t!e' t!e trouble and eFpenses t!at would be ne"essarily in"urred in !is sear"! and "apture.No. /. petitioner insists t!at t!e 'iti atin "ir"u'stan"e of voluntary surrender s!ould !ave been appre"iated in !is favor5viden"e for t!e prose"ution s!ows t!at petitioner. wit! Asso"iate 1usti"es 5duardo &@ontene ro 9retired: and Renato &.G0- #/% #0% #G% #. was towards petitioner w!en t!e latter.He was appre!ended by respondin poli"e offi"ers in t!e waitin s!ed at t!e "orner of &a'bas Road and @a saysay Avenue.

$(0G. %endoza. . Ambrocio..#$$% G$( P!il.. /77G at 6. G( P!il.. . G/) P!il $). 0(6 P!il..$0*0*7+*$. April $G. Salido. 1une 0.% #$6% #$*% #$(% .06666.No.No..-R.No. Santos et al. %anzanilla.77 9$).00 9$)$7:Del %ar v.G S&RA /)6.6G7 9$)/6:H People v. /770. ..6*(6.-R. De"e'ber $). /( S&RA $$. Pateo and atuto. /77G at 6People v. et al. G0 P!il.. . "itin People v. /77G at $(+$).-R.$. Dungca.$. Rivero v.-R./. Umali.Nos. /770. $. 1une (. /* P!il. $)6). /77G at $.No.$G70(. )er. () P!il. 1uly . /. /)6(esoro v.-R. "itin People v.-R. )( P!il.( S&RA /)$. Septe'ber /.$6* 9$)//:H US v./*) 9$). @ay /)..$$6/7(. ./*G 9$)$G:H US v.-R./7) 9/77$: People v. . G70 S&RA /6(People v. 'saac v. et al-.) 9/777:People v. . Court of Appeals. $)*0. .$. Conde.7G.No$G(. .No.No.-R.co. Court of Appeals. 1une /). %arcelo.$:H %ontes v. G$/ S&RA $)7- #$/% #$0% #$G% #$.$). . +scote. 07G "itin People v. 1uly 0$. /) 9/77/: People v. Cabical.6:. "itin People v.No.$G7/6*.(. C*' of (ayabas. . P!il. $))6.-R.