Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=30474:g-r-no-44594-may-8,-1990-angel-a-pelaez-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1263&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:30:59+00:00

Document:
ANGEL A. PELAEZ, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS * and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Calixto O. Zaldivar for Petitioner.
1.	REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE; PROVED IN CASE AT BAR. — We adopt the finding of the trial court when it rejected the defense version because of its inherent incredibility as borne out by the evidence on record. Based on overwhelming prosecution evidence, it ruled as follows: "The Court is convinced that the accused fired the shot which hit Leonardo Villaranda as a result of which he sustained gunshot wound for which reason he was operated on at the Makati Medical Center." (CFI, Decision, p. 54, Brief for the Accused-Appellant; Annex E, p. 36, Rollo). In the case of People v. Canada, 12 SCRA 9, We ruled that although there is no direct evidence pointing to the accused as the person who inflicted the wounds that caused the death of the deceased, where the circumstances pointed out by the lower court constitute more than sufficient evidence to convince the appellate court that he is the only one with sufficient motive to wish the death of the deceased, it is held that the appellant was properly convicted of homicide.
2.	ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT, GIVEN DUE RESPECT BY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. — Respondent Court sustained the stand taken by the trial court when it stated thus: "The resolution of the factual issue on who fired the shot which caused a gunshot wound in the head of the complainant hinges on the credibility of witnesses and the settled, long standing rule on the matter is for the appellate tribunal to give due respect to the assessment of the facts made by the lower court, said court having had the opportunity, not only of receiving the evidence, but also of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. And, this rule is not to be overturned unless there is a showing that in making the disputed factual findings, the trial court had overlooked or failed to consider certain facts of weight and importance that could have materially affected the conclusion reached in the case. (People v. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53; People v. Sales, 44 SCRA 489, 496).
"That on or about the 4th day of February 1971, in the Municipality of Makati, Province of Rizal and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Leonardo Villaranda y Castrence, hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of his body gunshot wounds which would produce the crime of homicide as a consequence but which, nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, that is because of the timely and able medical attendance rendered to the offended party which prevented his death." (p. 24, Rollo).
Patrolman Florante Jimenez conducted an investigation regarding the incident upon the information of one Miss Gulmatico of the Makati Medical Center.
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused Angel Pelaez alias Bobby Pelaez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of `Frustrated Homicide’ defined and penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 6 and Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE(1)DAY TO TWO(2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, to indemnify Leonardo Villaranda in the sum of P15,000.00, and to pay the costs." (p. 25, Rollo).
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, respondent Court, on July 20, 1976, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The motion for reconsideration of said decision was denied. Hence, this petition to review the respondent court’s decision.
(pp. 6 and 12, Brief for the Respondents-Appellees).
Upon noticing that Villaranda was hit by a bullet in the head, the appellant immediately went out of his house to look for a vehicle to carry Villaranda to the hospital. The appellant found a jeep and he, with the help of Manalo, forthwith brought Villaranda to the Makati Medical Center which was the nearest hospital from his house. Villaranda was immediately given medical attention. He was operated on by Dr. Romeo Gustilo, a neuro surgeon, and his life was saved. Villaranda was in the hospital for about twenty days, and the appellant was able to pay for all the hospital bills, except the professional fees of Dr. Gustilo.
Petitioner contends that the finding of the trial court, which was adopted by the Court of Appeals, that the appellant fired the shot that hit the head of the offended party was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of said offended party.
"The Court is convinced that the accused fired the shot which hit Leonardo Villaranda as a result of which he sustained gunshot wound for which reason he was operated on at the Makati Medical Center." (CFI, Decision, p. 54, Brief for the Accused-Appellant; Annex E, p. 36, Rollo).
"The resolution of the factual issue on who fired the shot which caused a gunshot wound in the head of the complainant hinges on the credibility of witnesses and the settled, long standing rule on the matter is for the appellate tribunal to give due respect to the assessment of the facts made by the lower court, said court having had the opportunity, not only of receiving the evidence, but also of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. And, this rule is not to be overturned unless there is a showing that in making the disputed factual findings, the trial court had overlooked or failed to consider certain facts of weight and importance that could have materially affected the conclusion reached in the case. (People v. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53; People v. Sales, 44 SCRA 489, 496).
"The trial court has not overlooked any fact of weight and importance that could have materially affected the conclusion reached in the case." (Court of Appeals decision, p. 27, Rollo).
Moreover, petitioner maintains that no evidence was presented to support the trial court’s decision ordering him to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P15,000.00. Respondent court therefore committed an error in sustaining the trial court’s ruling.
Q	Now, doctor, because of that injury did you perform an operation in that body of Mr. Villaranda?
A	Yes, we had an operation. We admitted the patient that night, got blood and the next morning we operated on him.
Q	When you performed the operation, did you recover any slugs or bullet?
A	There was no slug but there was metallic foreign body and blood clotting.
Q	Can you point on what part of the head was the wound located?
A	Left tempora-parietal. (Witness pointing to his left forehead).
Q	Before you perform the operation were you able to talk with the relatives of the victim?
A	I was not able to talk with the relatives of the victim but the victim was brought to the hospital by the relatives of Mr. Pelaez and I was able to talk with them. I was told that she was the wife and the other older woman who was the mother who gave me the consent and assured the responsibilities for the patient.
Q	What else did you talk about with the relatives of Pelaez?
A	We told them that the operation was life saving. That if it was not on time, the patient would die and they agreed to the operation.
Q	How about the fees?
A	No. (tsn, pp. 6-7, October 24, 1972; Emphasis ours).
(pp. 16-17, Brief for the Respondents-Appellees).
*	Penned by Justice Ramon C. Fernandez, and concurred in by Justices Ricardo C. Puno and Delfin FL. Batacan.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.