[CARLOS JAY ADLAWAN vs.
PEOPLE]  Adlawan did not take the witness stand but presented the houseboy as witness. The
Object as Evidence | April 18, 2018 | Martires, J.
Nature of the Case: Rule 45
SUMMARY: Adlawan was charged with Frustrated Murder and Attempted Robbery but
convicted of Frustrated Homicide only for hacking her stepmother, Georgia, after
asking her for the money earlier withdrawn to pay for his father’s hospitalization,
causing Georgia wounds which would have been fatal were it not for the timely medical
intervention. After conviction and on appeal, Adlawan and Georgia filed a Joint MTD
and to Admit Georgia’s Affidavit of Recantation and Desistance where Georgia
supposedly admitted that the charges were merely fabricated and that she sustained
her wounds when she accidently smashed herself in the glass door and after she slipped
when she was about to board their multicab. CA and SC affirmed the conviction for
Frustrated Homicide, holding that
DOCTRINE:
Re: Injuries Sustained: In frustrated homicide, the intent to kill is often inferred from,
among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number
of wounds he inflicted on his victim. Here, intent to kill was sufficiently shown not only
by the testimonies of Georgia, the victim herself, and Fred, the eyewitness, but also by
the established fact that Georgia sustained multiple deep hack wounds on her head,
neck, and abdomen, among other parts of her body. The gravity of these wounds was
clearly shown by the photographs presented by the prosecution, and the medical
certificate. Dr. Kangleon even testified that Georgia could have died if no medical
attention was given to her. The medical opinion of Dr. Kangleon who is presumably an
expert in this field is clearly more convincing than the Adlawan’s mere say-so.
Re: The Weapon Used (Katana): Despite the inadmissibility of the weapon presented
in evidence. Georgia positively identified Adlawan as the person who hacked him. Her
testimony was corroborated by Fred who categorically declared that Adlawan chased
and hacked Georgia. The testimonies of the witnesses were further buttressed by other
evidence including the photographs of Georgia's wounds and the medical certificate.
The credibility of these testimonies and evidence is now beyond dispute.
FACTS:
 Evidence presented by the prosecution to support the charge of Attempted Robbery:
o Accused asked Georgia where the money which she asked her secretary to
withdraw earlier was. When Georgia replied that his father was in the hospital,
accused furiously told her “as if you’re somebody!” and then started hacking her.
 Evidence presented by the prosecution to support the charge of Frustrated Murder:
o The testimonies of Georgia (the victim), Fred (the multicab driver), Maria
(Georgia’s secretary who withdrew the money which the accused was referring
to prior to the hacking),the police officer who investigated the crime, and Dr.
Kangleon (the physician who timely attended to Georgia’s injuries and testified
that the neck injury in particular whould have been fatal if not for the timely
medical intervention).
o The medical certificate prepared by Dr. Kangleon which revealed Georgia’s
injuries in the scalp, neck, ankle, right shoulder, right hand, left arm, left ear, left
wrist, hand, left breast, both knees, abdomen, and upper back.
o Photographs taken by a certain Charlita (who also testified in court and
identified the photos) showing the nature of the injuries).
accused also contended that the raised the prosecution witnesses failed to:
o Establish intent to kill
o Legally present the weapon (katana) allegedly used
o Injuries sustained by Georgia were not serious enough to cause death
o Inconsistencies merely show that the charges were fabricated, as supported by
the subsequent affidavit of recantation and desistance.
ISSUE: W/N Georgia’s affidavit of recantation and desistance should be disregarded
– YES.
a) Re: accused’s first argument: In frustrated homicide, intent to kill is often inferred
from, among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and
number of wounds he inflicted on his victim. Here, intent was sufficiently shown not
only by the testimonies of the witnesses but also by the established fact that Georgia
sustained multiple deep hack wounds, the gravity of which was shown by the
photographs and medical certificate as presented and identified by the person who
took the photographs and the physician who prepared the medical certificate.
b) Re: second and third arguments: Despite the inadmissibility of the weapon used
(the same having been searched and seized without a search warrant and without the
accused’s consent), Georgia positively identified the accused as the person who
hacked him. Her testimony was corroborated by Fred who categorically declared that
the accused chased and hacked Georgia. The testimonies of the witnesses were
further buttressed by other evidence including the photographs of Georgia's wounds
and the medical certificate.
c) Re: fourth argument: An affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to
buttress the accused's defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal.
It is looked upon with disfavor and deserves scant consideration as it can be easily
secured usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. To be valid,
there must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or
desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses
during trial and accepted by the judge. Even Georgia’s version after the recantation
(that she accidentally smashed herself against the glass door and slipped) defies logic
and common sense.
RULING: Denied.