Colinares v. People

G.R. No. 182748 (December 13, 2011)

Arnel Colinares was convicted of attempted homicide, lacking self-defense, with probation options.

Facts:

Arnel Colinares was charged with frustrated homicide in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Camarines Sur, following an incident on June 25, 2000, where he allegedly attacked Rufino P. Buena with a large stone, causing serious injuries. Rufino and his companions, Jesus Paulite and Ananias Jallores, were reportedly intoxicated at the time. Rufino testified that he was struck twice on the head by Arnel, rendering him unconscious. Ananias corroborated this by stating he witnessed Rufino lying on the ground after being attacked. Paciano Alano, another witness, testified that he saw the incident unfold and assisted in getting Rufino to the hospital.

The defense presented Arnel, who claimed he acted in self-defense. He testified that Rufino and his companions attacked him first, prompting him to retaliate with the stone. Diomedes Paulite, another defense witness, supported Arnel's claim by stating that he saw a heated argument between Arnel and the three intoxicated men. The RTC found Arnel guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to imprisonment, which exceeded the maximum probationable term under Philippine law.

Arnel appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), maintaining his self-defense claim and alternatively seeking a conviction for attempted homicide. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision but removed the award for lost income due to lack of evidence. Arnel then sought a review from the Supreme Court, which required both parties to clarify whether he could apply for probation if the penalty was reduced to a probationable level.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did Arnel act in self-defense when he struck Rufino with a stone?
  2. If not, is he guilty of frustrated homicide or attempted homicide?
  3. Can Arnel apply for probation upon remand of the case to the trial court if the Supreme Court finds him guilty of a lesser offense?

Arguments:

  • Petitioner's Argument (Arnel Colinares):

    • Arnel contended that he acted in self-defense, asserting that he was attacked first by Rufino and his companions. He claimed that the use of the stone was necessary to repel unlawful aggression.
    • He argued that if the Court found him guilty of a lesser offense, he should be allowed to apply for probation since the new penalty would fall within the probationable range.

  • Respondent's Argument (People of the Philippines):

    • The prosecution maintained that Arnel was the aggressor and failed to prove the elements of self-defense, particularly unlawful aggression from the victim.
    • The Solicitor General argued that under the Probation Law, an application for probation cannot be entertained once the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

  1. Self-Defense: The Court ruled that Arnel failed to establish the elements of self-defense. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses was found to be more credible, and there was no corroborating evidence to support Arnel's claims of being attacked first. The Court emphasized that self-defense requires clear and convincing evidence of unlawful aggression, which Arnel did not provide.

  2. Frustrated vs. Attempted Homicide: The Court determined that while Arnel intended to kill Rufino, the injuries inflicted were not fatal, leading to a conviction for attempted homicide rather than frustrated homicide. The medical evidence indicated that the wounds were serious but not necessarily fatal, thus qualifying the crime as attempted rather than frustrated.

  3. Probation Eligibility: The Court concluded that Arnel could apply for probation upon remand to the trial court. It reasoned that since the penalty was reduced to a probationable level, it would be unjust to deny him the opportunity to apply for probation, especially given that the original conviction was based on an erroneous assessment of the crime. The Court highlighted the principle of fairness and the intent of the Probation Law to promote rehabilitation.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The burden of proof lies with the accused to establish self-defense, requiring clear evidence of unlawful aggression.
  • The distinction between frustrated and attempted homicide hinges on the fatality of the injuries inflicted and the intent of the accused.
  • An accused may be allowed to apply for probation if the appellate court modifies the conviction to a lesser offense with a probationable penalty, emphasizing the rehabilitative purpose of the Probation Law.