You are on page 1of 2




Petitioners: Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva

Respondents: Elpidio Malicse, Sr. and People of the Philippines

GR No. 190912, January 12, 2015


On or about June 27, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines. Elpidio Malicse Sr. became a victim
of felonious acts where he suffered injuries and was beaten up to death by a group of men. The accused
were identified as, Salvador Iguiron, Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron, Gary Fantastico Rolando Villanueva,
Tommy Ballesteros, Nestor Ballesteros and Eugene Surigao. These identified men confederated willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously applying irresistible force, mauled Elipidio, hitting his head with a piece of
rattan, axe, pipe and a piece of wood. The accused, with intent to kill and with treachery and taking
advantage of superior strength, directly by overt acts commenced the commission of the crime of

As a result, a case for Attempted Murder was filed against the accused whose names are stated

However, the defendant pleaded “not guilty” by reason that the accused did not perform all acts
of execution which should have produced the crime of murder, as a consequence, by reason of causes
other than their own spontaneous desistance and that the injuries caused were not necessarily mortal.

A petition for review on certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court by the accused, stating
the following arguments:

1. The conclusions drawn by the court of appeals and the trial court from the facts of the case
are incorrect.
2. The information itself in this case does not allege all the elements and the necessary
ingredients of the specific crime attempted murder.
3. Not all of the elements attempted murder are present in this case.
4. There is no treachery or any other qualifying circumstance to speak of in this case.
5. The lower court and the court of appeals failed to consider the presence of mitigating
6. There are manifest mistakes in the findings of facts by the court of appeals and the trial
7. The conviction of the petitioners was based on the weakness of the defense evidence, not
on the strength of the prosecution evidence.
8. The testimony of the respondent that it was the petitioners who attacked him is indeed
uncorroborated and thus self-serving.
9. Clearly, there are so much reversible errors in the decision of the court of appeals and the
lower court that injuriously affected the substantial right of the petitioners and these should
be corrected by this honorable court.

1. Whether or not the petitioners in their issues and arguments presented involved questions
of facts.
2. Whether or not the case is subject to dismissal for failure to be in accordance with the rules
on Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court that petitions should only raise questions of


1. Yes.

The distinction between a “question of law” and a “question of fact” is settled. There is a
“question of law” when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain facts and which
does not call for examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties- litigants.
On the other hand, there is a “question of fact” when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or
not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.

2. Yes.
The petitioners presented an argument involving questions of facts, implicating a failure to be in
accordance with the requirement of Rule 45, of the Rules of Court.