Isidro P. Miranda vs. People

G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO,…spondent.
: January 2019 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 19/08/2020, 12)29 AM
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws
Jurisprudence
January 2019 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme
Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 >

January 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 234528, January
23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO, Petitioner,
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. :
G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA

Y PARELASIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Custom Search
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Search
ChanRobles
Professional
Review, Inc. THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019
ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO, Petitioner, v.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2019januarydecisions.php?id=43 Page 1 of 32
G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO,…spondent. : January 2019 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 19/08/2020, 12)29 AM
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
A. REYES, JR., J.:
This treats of the Petition for Review on Certiorari1

under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by
petitioner Isidro Miranda y Parelasio (Miranda), seeking
the reversal of the Decision2 dated May 15, 2017, and
Resolution3 dated September 13, 2017, rendered by

ChanRobles On-
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38523,
Line Bar Review
which affirmed the trial court's ruling convicting him of
the crime of Frustrated Homicide.
The Antecedents
On September 28, 2011, an Information was filed

against Miranda for the crime of frustrated homicide,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 14th day of August

2011 in Barangay Binonoan of Infanta,
Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill,
armed with [a] bolo, did then and there,
ChanRobles CPA willfully, feloniously and unlawfully,
Review Online assaulted and repeatedly hacked a certain
WINARDO PILO Y MORTIZ, on the different
part[s] of his body thereby inflicting upon
the latter mortal wounds on the parts of his
body, thus, performing all acts of execution
which would produce the crime of Homicide
as a consequence but which nevertheless do
not produce the same by reason of causes
independent of the will of the accused. To

wit: the timely and able medical assistance
rendered to the complainant (minor) which
prevented his instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
When arraigned on December 6, 2011, Miranda

pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. During the
pre-trial, he interposed self-defense, which led to a
reverse trial of case.5
The antecedent facts show that in the evening of

August 14, 2011, victim Winardo Pilo (Pilo) attended
ChanRobles Special
the party of his niece at Barangay Binonoan, Infanta,
Lecture Series
Quezon. After the party, he and his friend Danilo
Damaso (Damaso) left. While on their way home, they
passed by the house of Miranda and threw stones at
the latter's home.6
While Pilo was on his way home, Miranda suddenly

went outside and started hacking Pilo. He hit Pilo's
right forehead. Again, Miranda tried to hit Pilo, but the
latter parried the attack with his left arm.7
In an attempt to stop Miranda, Damaso threw a stone

at him. Thereafter, Damaso grabbed possession of the
bolo.8
In his defense, Miranda admitted that he hacked Pilo

with the bolo twice, but claimed that his acts were
done in self-defense.9 He narrated that on August 14,

2011, at around 7:00p.m., while he was at home with
his wife and daughter, he suddenly heard a thud at
their door, followed by several other thuds and stones
hurled at their house. Miranda peeped through the

window and saw Pilo, throwing stones. He claimed that
before he peeped through the door, he heard Pilo
challenge him to come out so that they could kill each
other.10 Miranda asked Pilo if something was wrong,

but the latter ignored him and continued hurling
stones.11 According to Miranda, Pilo approached him

and hit his upper left cheek with a stone. When Pilo
stretched his two arms downwards to pick up
something from the ground, Miranda suddenly hacked
Pilo's arm with his bolo, in order to defend himself from
Pilo's oncoming attack. 12
At this instance, Damaso, arrived and grappled with

Miranda to get a hold of the latter's bolo. Because of
this, Damaso likewise sustained injuries.
Ruling of the Trial Court
On January 7, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
rendered a Decision13 finding Miranda guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide.
The RTC held that Miranda's claim of self-defense is
biased, self-serving, inconsistent, illogical and contrary
to the common experience of man.14 The RTC further

held that Miranda failed to prove that his act of hacking
Pilo was legally justified.15 The dispositive portion of

the RTC ruling reads:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING,

judgment is hereby rendered against
[Miranda], finding him GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated
homicide, and there being [sic] aggravating
nor mitigating circumstance and applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court

hereby imposes upon the said accused the
penalty of imprisonment which is the
maximum of prision correccional in its
medium period which is Four (4) years and
Two (2) months, as minimum, up to the
maximum of prision mayor in its medium
period which is Ten (10) years, as
maximum, to suffer all the accessory
penalties, to pay private complainant [Pilo]
the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(Php30,000.00) as actual and/or temperate
damages, Twenty Thousand Pesos
(Php20,000.00) as moral damages, Ten
Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) as
exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of
suit.
SO ORDERED.16
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Miranda filed an appeal

with the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On May 15, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed
Decision17 affirming the conviction meted by the trial

court against Miranda. The CA ratiocinated that
Miranda's claim of self-defense had no leg to stand on,
considering that the act of Pilo of hurling stones at the
house of Miranda cannot be regarded as an unlawful
aggression that wan-anted the latter's act of hacking
Pilo with a bolo.18
However, the CA held that although the act may not be

regarded as an unlawful aggression, it may nonetheless
be appreciated as sufficient provocation on the part of

Pilo, which mitigates Miranda's liability. Pilo's act of
throwing stones at the house of Miranda is sufficient
provocation to enrage him, or stir his anger and
obfuscate his thinking, more so, when the lives of his
wife and children were placed in danger.19
However, the CA held that there was no voluntary

surrender on Miranda's part considering that he did not
actually voluntarily surrender to the police authorities.
Thus, the CA modified the penalty meted by the RTC
unto Miranda, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated
January 7, 2016 of the [RTC] of Infanta,
Quezon, in Criminal Case No. 2011-150-I is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused-appellant ISIDRO MIRANDA y
PARELASIO is found guilty of frustrated
homicide and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment from four (4) years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to seven (7)
years of prision mayor, as maximum. He is
also ordered to pay WINARDO PILO the
sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos
(Php25,000.00) as temperate damages and
Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) as
moral damages. The award of exemplary
damages is hereby ordered DELETED.
SO ORDERED.20
The Issue
The main issue raised for the Court's resolution rests
on whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of

Miranda for frustrated homicide beyond reasonable
doubt.
In Miranda's petition for review, he staunchly maintains

that the CA erred in failing to exonerate him, as he
January-2019 merely acted in self-defense.
Jurisprudence
On the other hand, the People, through the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), counters that the
prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of Miranda
G.R. No. 235071,
beyond reasonable doubt. The OSG maintains that
January 07, 2019 -
Miranda may not claim self-defense in the absence of
EVANGELINE
an unlawful aggression from Pilo. Moreover, the OSG
PATULOT Y GALIA,
avers that Miranda's intent to kill Pilo was evident from
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
the kind of weapon he used and the number and
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
nature of wounds the latter sustained.
Respondent.
Ruling of the Court
G.R. No. 234156,
The instant petition is devoid of merit.
January 07, 2019 -
PEOPLE OF THE It must be noted at the outset that in criminal cases,
PHILIPPINES, the factual findings of the trial court are generally
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. accorded great weight and respect on appeal,
EMMANUEL OLIVA Y especially when such findings are supported by
JORJIL, BERNARDO substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional
BARANGOT Y PILAIS circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked
AND MARK ANGELO material and relevant matters, that the Court will
MANALASTAS Y
evaluate the factual findings of the court below.21
GAPASIN, Accused-
Guided by this principle, the Court finds no cogent
Appellants.
reason to disturb the RTC's factual findings, which were
affirmed by the CA.
G.R. No. 234323,
January 07, 2019 -
The Prosecution Proved Beyond Reasonable
PEOPLE OF THE
Doubt that Miranda is Guilty of Frustrated
PHILIPPINES, Homicide
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
JORDAN BATALLA Y Significantly, in cases of frustrated homicide, the
AQUINO, Accused- prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
Appellant. "(i) the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his
G.R. No. 234323, assault; (ii) the victim sustained [a] fatal or mortal
January 07, 2019 - wound but did not die because of timely medical
PEOPLE OF THE assistance; and (iii) none of the qualifying
PHILIPPINES, circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, are
JORDAN BATALLA Y present."22
AQUINO, Accused-
It bears stressing that the main element in frustrated
Appellant.
homicide is the accused's intent to take his victim's life.
The prosecution has to prove this clearly and
G.R. No. 234156 -
convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding
PEOPLE OF THE
homicidal intent. Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is
PHILIPPINES,
discerned by the courts only through external
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
manifestations, such as the acts and conduct of the
v. EMMANUEL OLIVA
accused at the time of the assault and immediately
Y JORJIL, BERNARDO
BARANGOT Y PILAIS thereafter.23 Likewise, such homicidal intent may be
AND MARK ANGELO inferred from, among other things, the means the
MANALASTAS Y offender used, and the nature, location, and number of
GAPASIN, ACCUSED- wounds he inflicted on his victim.24

APPELLANTS.
In fact, in De Guzman, Jr. v. People,25 the Court,
G.R. No. 234323 - quoting Rivera v. People,26 enumerated the factors

PEOPLE OF THE that determine the presence of intent to kill, to wit:
PHILIPPINES,
(1) the means used by the malefactors; (2)
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
the nature, location, and number of wounds
v. JORDAN BATALLA Y
sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of
AQUINO, ACCUSED-
the malefactors before, during, or
APPELLANT.
immediately after the killing of the victim;

G.R. No. 215545, and (4) the circumstances under which the
January 07, 2019 - crime was committed and the motives of
QUIRINO T. DELA the accused.27
CRUZ, Petitioner, v.
In the case at bar, Miranda's intent to kill was clearly
NATIONAL POLICE
established by the nature and number of wounds
COMMISSION,
sustained by Pilo. The records show that Miranda used
Respondent.
a bolo measuring 1 ½ feet. The hacking wound was
about five inches long, and 1 inch deep fracturing Pilo's
G.R. No. 234951,
January 28, 2019 - skull in the parietal area.28 Relentless in his attack,
PEOPLE OF THE Miranda continuously made several thrusts against Pilo,
PHILIPPINES, while the latter was already sprawled on the ground.
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. This caused Pilo to sustain two additional wounds.
BENJAMIN A. These deep gashes measured four inches long by one-
ELIMANCIL, Accused- inch deep, and 1.5 inch long by one-inch deep in Pilo's
Appellant. forearm. In fact, these continuous attacks were

stopped only when Damaso arrived and grappled with
G.R. No. 235071 - the weapon.29 Undoubtedly, the manner of attack and
EVANGELINE the injuries sustained show forth a clear resolve to end
PATULOT Y GALIA, Pilo's life. Indeed, these injuries cannot simply be
PETITIONER, v. brushed aside as grazing injuries, especially
PEOPLE OF THE considering that one of which, was an injury to the
PHILIPPINES, head of Pilo, which may have caused the latter's
RESPONDENT. untimely demise, if not for the timely medical
assistance.
G.R. No. 201302,
January 23, 2019 - Miranda's Claim of Self-Defense is
HYGIENIC Unbelievable
PACKAGING
CORPORATION, In a bleak attempt to exonerate himself from the crime
Petitioner, v. NUTRI- charged, Miranda claims that he merely acted in self-
ASIA, INC., DOING defense.
BUSINESS UNDER
THE NAME AND The Court is not persuaded.

STYLE OF UFC
To begin with, when the accused invokes self-defense,
PHILIPPINES
in effect, he admits to the commission of the acts for
(FORMERLY NUTRI-
which he was charged, albeit under circumstances that,
ASIA, INC.),
if proven, would exculpate him. As such, the burden of
Respondent.
proving that his act was justified, shifts upon him.30
G.R. No. 228718, This means that the accused must prove by clear and
January 07, 2019 - convincing evidence that the attack was accompanied
EDWIN FUENTES Y by the following circumstances: (i) unlawful aggression
GARCIA @ on the part of the victim; (ii) reasonable necessity of
"KANYOD," Petitioner, the means employed to prevent or repel such
v. PEOPLE OF THE aggression; and (iii) lack of sufficient provocation on
PHILIPPINES, the part of the person resorting to self-defense.31 The

Respondent. accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if
A.M. No. 18-07- the prosecution's evidence is weak, it cannot be
153-RTC, January 07, disbelieved after the accused himself has admitted his
2019 - RE: acts.32
DROPPING FROM THE
It, likewise, bears stressing that the most important
ROLLS OF LAYDABELL
element of self-defense is unlawful aggression. This is a
G. PIJANA, SHERIFF
IV, REGIONAL TRIAL condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense.33
COURT OF TAGAYTAY Significantly, the accused must establish the
CITY, CAVITE, concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression,
BRANCH 18 namely: (i) there must have been a physical or

material attack or assault; (ii) the attack or assault
G.R. No. 241017, must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (iii) the
January 07, 2019 - attack or assault must be unlawful.34 To be sure, the

PEOPLE OF THE accused must show that the aggression caused by the
PHILIPPINES, victim in fact put his life or personal safety in real and
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. grave peril. This danger must not be a mere imagined
BRENDA CAMIÑAS Y threat.
AMING, Accused-
Appellant. Equally important, imminent unlawful aggression

means that the attack against the accused is
G.R. No. 223713, impending or at the point of happening. This scenario
January 07, 2019 - must be distinguished from a mere threatening
PEOPLE OF THE attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be
PHILIPPINES, offensive and positively strong.35
Appellee, v.
Applying the foregoing doctrines to the case at bar, it
RODELINA MALAZO Y
becomes all too apparent that the evidence on record
DORIA, Appellant.
does not support Miranda's contention that Pilo
employed unlawful aggression against him. It must be
G.R. No. 231122,
remembered that Pilo was merely throwing stones at
January 16, 2019 -
the house of Miranda. Miranda himself admitted during
PEOPLE OF THE
the trial that Pilo did not throw stones at him, much
PHILIPPINES,
less, utter any invectives, or threatening words against
him. In fact, the stones Pilo threw merely hit Miranda's
ALEX CASEMIRO AND
JOSE CATALAN, JR., roof and door.36
Accused-Appellants.
Equally telling is the fact that when Miranda asked Pilo
why he was throwing stones, the latter did not respond
A.M. No. P-16-3505
but simply remained mum, and threw a stone at
[Formerly OCA IPI
Miranda's iron door. Miranda even further narrated that
No. 13-4134-P],
after throwing stones, Pilo even approached him, which
January 22, 2019 -
made him believe that Pilo was trying to make peace
ZENMOND D. DUQUE,
with him.37 This certainly belies an impending threat to
Complainant, v. .
Miranda's life. The following exchange proves the
CESAR C. CALPO,
absence of an unlawful aggression, viz.:
COURT
STENOGRAPHER III, ATTY. CAYANAN:
REGIONAL TRIAL
Q: What did you do after you heard the
COURT, BRANCH 16,
thug (sic thud) which you felt to be caused
CAVITE CITY,
by stones that was [sic] thrown to your
Respondent.
door?
A: I looked at the window to find out where
G.R. No. 241091,
January 14, 2019 - those thug (sic thud) coming from and I
PEOPLE OF THE saw Winardo Pilo throwing stones, sir.
PHILIPPINES,
xxxx
LITO PAMING Y Q: When you saw the private complainant
JAVIER, Accused- throwing stones at your door, what did you
Appellant. do next, if there was any?
A: I asked him why he was throwing stones
G.R. No. 233883, at my door while the door did not commit
January 07, 2019 - any mistake, sir.
PEOPLE OF THE
xxxx
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Q: After the said private complainant still
MARK VINCENT continued to throw stones at your door,
CORRAL Y BATALLA, what happened next, if there was any?
Accused-Appellant. A: I went out of the house and asked him
again why he was throwing stones at my
G.R. No. 199562, house, sir.
January 16, 2019 -
BANK OF THE Q: What did the private complainant answer
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS to you, if there was any?
AND ANA C. A: He remained silent and then he
GONZALES, approached me and I thought that he
Petitioners, v. was going to make peace with me,
SPOUSES FERNANDO sir.38

V. QUIAOIT
It is all too apparent that Miranda's life was not in
PROMULGATED: AND
grave peril. The stones were never directed against
NORA L. QUIAOIT,
Miranda. More than this, Miranda even believed that
Respondents.
Pilo was going to make peace with him. Obviously,
Miranda was certainly not faced with any actual,
G.R. No. 238176,
sudden, unexpected or imminent danger for him to
January 14, 2019 -
have the need to defend himself.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Moreover, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miranda hacked Pilo four times, when the latter was
RAMON BAY-OD, completely defenseless. This continuous hacking by
Accused-Appellant. Miranda constitutes force beyond what is reasonably
required to repel the private complainant's attack—and
G.R. No. 228262, is certainly unjustified. Notably, in Espinosa v.
January 21, 2019 - People,39 which also involves the continuous hacking
PEOPLE OF THE by the accused even after the aggressor had been
PHILIPPINES, neutralized, the Court stressed that "the act of the
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. accused in repeatedly hacking the victim was in no way
JOENIL PIN MOLDE, a reasonable and necessary means of repelling the
Accused-Appellant.
aggression allegedly initiated by the latter."40
G.R. No. 224210, Additionally, even assuming for the sake of argument
January 23, 2019 - that Pilo stooped down to the ground, which Miranda
PEOPLE OF THE perceived as a threat that Pilo was going to pick up a
PHILIPPINES, stone, there is absolutely nothing life-threatening in
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. such a situation. It must be emphasized that imminent
MARYLOU GUMBAN Y unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening
CARANAY AND JOEL attitude of the victim.41 Undoubtedly, Pilo's act of
CHENG NG, Accused, simply stooping down to the ground was in no way a
MARYLOU GUMBAN Y threat to Miranda's life.
CARANAY, Accused-
It, likewise, bears stressing that Miranda cannot seek
Appellant.
exoneration on the simple pretext that the attack was
initiated by Pilo. Suffice to say, in the case of People v.
A.M. No. 18-11-09-
SC, January 22, 2019 Dulin,42 the Court held that the fact that the victim was
- RE: COMPLAINT- the initial aggressor does not ipso facto show that
AFFIDAVIT OF ELVIRA there was unlawful aggression. The Court elucidated
N. ENALBES, that although the victim may have been the initial
REBECCA H. aggressor, he ceased to be the aggressor as soon as he
ANGELES AND was dispossessed of the weapon. Whatever the
ESTELITA B. OCAMPO accused did thereafter is no longer self-defense, but
AGAINST FORMER retaliation, which is not the same as self-defense. In
CHIEF JUSTICE retaliation, the aggression that the victim started
TERESITA J. already ceased when the accused attacked him, but in

LEONARDO-DE self-defense, the aggression was still continuing when
CASTRO [RET.], the accused injured the aggressor.43 In the instant
RELATIVE TO G.R. case, Miranda continued to hack Pilo even after the
NOS. 203063 AND latter stopped throwing stones. Plainly, Miranda's act
204743. constituted a retaliation against Pilo. Certainly at this
point, Miranda was no longer motivated by the lawful
G.R. No. 229780, desire of defending himself, but of the evil intent of
January 22, 2019 - retaliating and harming Pilo.
BALAYAN WATER
In addition to the fact that there was no unlawful
DISTRICT (BWD),
aggression, the Court, likewise, notes that the means
CONRADO S. LOPEZ
employed by Miranda was not reasonably
AND ROMEO D.
commensurate to the nature and extent of the alleged
PANTOJA, Petitioners,
attack, which he sought to avert. In Dela Cruz v.
v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent. People, et al.,44 the Court emphasized that, "the
means employed by the person invoking self-defense
G.R. No. 221418, contemplates a rational equivalence between the
January 23, 2019 - means of attack and the defense. The means employed
JOSE T. VILLAROSA, by a person resorting to self-defense must be rationally
CARLITO T. CAJAYON necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful
AND PABLO I. aggression."45 Here, the victim Pilo was armed with a
ALVARO, Petitioners, stone, in contrast to the 1 ½-inch bolo that Miranda
v. THE HONORABLE was brandishing.
OMBUDSMAN AND
More so, as correctly observed by the CA, Miranda
ROLANDO C.
could have stayed hidden and protected at his house.
BASILIO,
He himself even admitted that he hid among the
Respondents.
banana shrubs before hitting Pilo. In fact, he waited for
Pilo to come out of his house, while he was hiding
G.R. No. 225725,
among the banana shrubs outside of the yard of their
January 16, 2019 -
LEPANTO house.46
CONSOLIDATED
Miranda is Entitled to the Mitigating
MINING COMPANY,
Petitioner, v. MAXIMO Circumstance of Sufficient Provocation

C. MAMARIL,
EDUARDO C. Although Pilo's act of hurling stones may not be
FONTIVEROS, regarded as an unlawful aggression, admittedly,
RICHARD PADONG, however, such deed was vexatious, improper and
SHARWIN ESPIQUE, enough to incite Miranda into anger. The fact that
CLARITO ALBING, Miranda was stirred to rage was understandable
BALUDOY TOTANES, considering that his wife and daughter were at his
GERRY OLANIO, home, and were peacefully having supper when Pilo
JOSEPH threw the stones.
DUMANGENG,
In Gotis v. People,47 the Court held that while an act
REYNALD MANUIT,
cannot be considered an unlawful aggression for the
NARDO SINGIT,
purpose of self-defense, the same act may be regarded
MICHAEL PANGDA,
as sufficient provocation for the purpose of mitigating
BENJAMIN ASIDERA,
ALVARO PATAGUE, the crime.48 "As a mitigating circumstance, sufficient
JR., ANGELITO provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of
NAYRE, JR., JOSE the victim adequate enough to excite a person to
MOJICA, AND JOEL commit a wrong, which is accordingly proportionate in
SILARAN, gravity."49 The victim must have committed a prior act

Respondents. that incited or irritated the accused.50 Likewise, in
order to be mitigating, the provocation must be
G.R. No. 209047,
sufficient and should immediately precede the act.51
January 07, 2019 -
ANGELA USARES Y In fact, in a long line of cases, the Court considered
SIBAY, Petitioner, v. that although there may have been no unlawful
PEOPLE OF aggression on the part of the victim, if the latter was
PHILIPPINES, nonetheless deemed to have given sufficient
Respondent. provocation, then the accused's liability shall be
mitigated. Such acts which were deemed vexatious
G.R. No. 210683, range from the victim's act of challenging the accused's
January 08, 2019 - family while armed with a bolo;52 or thrusting a bolo at
DR. CONSOLACION S. the accused while threatening to kill him with the lives
CALLANG, Petitioner, of the accused's wife and children placed in peril;53 and
v. COMMISSION ON the victim attempting to hack the accused.54 Certainly,

AUDIT, Respondent. Pilo's act of hurling stones while Miranda's family was
peacefully enjoying their supper falls within this range.
G.R. No. 233174, Accordingly, the Court shall consider in favor of Miranda
January 23, 2019 - the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.
RUEL FRANCIS M.
The Proper Penalty
CABRAL, Petitioner, v.
CHRIS S. Article 249 of the RPC states that the penalty for
BRACAMONTE, homicide shall be reclusion temporal. Considering that
Respondent. the crime committed was frustrated homicide, then the
penalty imposed shall be one degree lower than
G.R. No. 210773, reclusion temporal, which is prision mayor in its
January 23, 2019 - minimum term, in view of the presence of the
GSIS FAMILY BANK mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.
EMPLOYEES UNION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS Furthermore, applying the Indeterminate Sentence
PRESIDENT MS. Law, an indeterminate sentence shall be imposed,
JUDITH JOCELYN consisting of a maximum term, which is the penalty
MARTINEZ, Petitioner, under the RPC properly imposed after considering any
v. SEC. CESAR L. attending circumstance; while the minimum term is
VILLANUEVA (IN HIS within the range of the penalty next lower than that
CAPACITY AS THE prescribed by the RPC for the offense committed.55

CHAIRMAN OF THE Accordingly, the CA correctly meted the penalty of four
GOVERNANCE (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven
COMMISSION FOR (7) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
GOVERNMENT-
However, the Court shall modify the amount of
OWNED OR
damages awarded in order to conform with current
CONTROLLED
jurisprudence. Guided by the Court's ruling in People v.
CORPORATIONS
Jugueta,56 the amount of damages imposed against
UNDER THE OFFICE
Miranda shall be as follows: (i) Php 50,000.00 as civil
OF THE PRESIDENT),
indemnity, (ii) Php 50,000.00 as moral damages, and
MR. EMMANUEL L.
(iii) Php 50,000.00 as exemplary damages. These
BENITEZ (IN HIS
amounts shall be subject to the legal rate of interest of
CAPACITY AS
PRESIDENT OF THE six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the
GSIS FAMILY BANK), Court's ruling until full payment.
AND ATTY.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
GERALDINE MARIE
petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision
BERBERABE-
dated May 15, 2017, rendered by the Court of Appeals
MARTINEZ (IN HER
in CA-G.R. CR No. 38523, convicting petitioner Isidro
CAPACITY AS
Miranda y Parelasio of the crime of Frustrated
CHAIRPERSON OF
Homicide, is hereby AFFIRMED with modification, in
THE BOARD OF
that Miranda is hereby ordered to pay victim Winardo
DIRECTORS OF THE
Pilo the following amounts of damages in line with
GSIS FAMILY BANK),
People v. Jugueta: (i) Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
Respondents.
(ii) Php 50,000.00 as moral damages, and (iii) Php
50,000.00 as exemplary damages. The total amount
G.R. No. 232060,
due shall earn a legal rate of interest of six percent
January 14, 2019 -
(6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this
VIRGILIA T. AQUINO,
Decision until the full satisfaction thereof.
NAZARIA T. AQUINO,
AVELINA A. SO ORDERED.
RONQUILLO,
Peralta (Chairperson), Leonen, Hernando, and
PATROCINIO T.
AQUINO, AND Carandang,*JJ., concur.
RAMONCITO T.
NEPOMUCENO,
Petitioners, v. ESTATE
OF TOMAS B.
February 18, 2019
AGUIRRE,
Respondent. NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
G.R. No. 231643,
January 15, 2019 - Please take notice that on January 23, 2019 a
CHRISTIAN C. Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the
HALILI, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original
COMMISSION ON of which was received by this Office on February 18,
ELECTIONS, PYRA 2019 at 3:50 p.m.
LUCAS, AND
CRISOSTOMO Very truly yours,
GARBO,
Respondents.; G.R.
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
No. 231657, January
Division Clerk of Court
15, 2019 - MARINO P.
MORALES, Petitioner,
v. PYRA LUCAS AND Endnotes:
THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, * Designated as additional Member per
Respondents.;
Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28,
CHRISTIAN C. HALILI
2018.
AND CRISOSTOMO
GARBO, 1Rollo, pp. 12 35.
Respondents-
2 Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y.
Intervenors.
Lopez, with Associate Justices Normandie B.
G.R. No. 187262, Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring;
January 10, 2019 - id. at 41-49.
ENGINEERING
3 Id. at 51-52.
GEOSCIENCE, INC.,
Petitioner, v. 4 Id. at 42.
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS
BANK, Respondent. 5 Id. at 73.
6 Id. at 43.
A.C. No. 12063,
January 08, 2019 - 7 Id.
EVERDINA C.
ANGELES, 8 Id. at 79.
Complainant, v. ATTY.
9 Id. at 74.
WILFREDO B. LINA-
AC, Respondent.
10 Id. at 75.
G.R. No. 217044, 11 Id. at 15.
January 16, 2019 -

12 Id. at 74; 15.
SPOUSES RAINIER
JOSE M. YULO AND 13 Rendered by Presiding Judge Arnelo C.
JULIET L. YULO,
Mesa; id. at 73-92.
Petitioners, v. BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINE 14 Id. at 82.
ISLANDS,
15 Id. at 85.
Respondent.
16 Id. at 92.
A.C. No. 11334,
January 07, 2019 - 17 Id. at 41-49.
JOCELYN SORENSEN,
Complainant, v. ATTY. 18 Id. at 46.
FLORITO T. POZON,
19 Id.
Respondent.; A.C.
NO. 11335, January
20 Id. at 48.
07, 2019 - JOCELYN
SORENSEN, 21People v. Palma, et al., 754 Phil. 371, 377
Complainant, v. ATTY. (2015).

FLORITO T. POZON,
22De Guzman, Jr. v. People, 748 Phil. 452,
Respondent.
458 (2014).
G.R. No. 230566,
23 Id. at 458-459.
January 22, 2019 -
SUBIC BAY 24Abella v. People, 719 Phil. 53, 66 (2013),
METROPOLITAN
citing Colinares v. People, 678 Phil. 482,
AUTHORITY, ET AL.,
494 (2011).
Petitioners, v.
COMMISSION ON 25 748 Phil. 452 (2014).
AUDIT, Respondent.
26 511 Phil. 824 (2006).
G.R. No. 228953,

27De Guzman, Jr. v. People, supra note 25,
January 28, 2019 -
at 458.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, 28Rollo, p. 88.
29 Id. at 88-89.
JOSH JOE T. SAHIBIL,
Accused-Appellant.
30Dela Cruz v. People, et al., 747 Phil. 376,
384-385 (2014).
G.R. No. 215904,
January 10, 2019 - 31Guevarra, et al. v. People, 726 Phil. 183,
EDGAR L. TORILLOS,
194 (2014).
Petitioner, v.
EASTGATE MARITIME 32Dela Cruz v. People, supra note 30, at
CORPORATION, F.J. 384-385.

LINES, INC.,
33People v. Dulin, 762 Phil. 24, 36 (2015).
PANAMA, AND
EMMANUEL L. REGIO,
34 Id. at 37.
Respondents.; G.R.
No. 216165, January 35 Id.
10, 2019 - EASTGATE

36Rollo, p. 85, 87.
MARITIME
CORPORATION, F.J.
37 Id. at 86.
LINES, INC.,
PANAMA, AND 38 Id. at 85-86.
EMMANUEL L. REGIO,
Petitioners, v. EDGAR 39 629 Phil. 432 (2010).
L. TORILLOS,,
40 Id. at 439.
Respondent.
41People v. Dulin, supra note 33, at 37.

A.M. No. 2014-16-
SC, January 15, 2019 42 762 Phil. 24 (2015).
- RE: COMPLAINT
43 Id. at 38.
AGAINST MR.
RAMDEL REY M. DE
44 747 Phil. 376 (2014).
LEON, EXECUTIVE
ASSISTANT III, 45 Id. at 391.
OFFICE OF
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE 46Rollo, p. 77.
JOSE P. PEREZ, ON
47 559 Phil. 843 (2007).
THE ALLEGED
DISHONESTY AND
48 Id. at 850.
DECEIT IN
SOLICITING MONEY 49 Id., citing L. Reyes, The Revised Penal
FOR INVESTMENTS
Code Book One 265 (13th ed., 1993), 264-
265.
A.M. No. P-18-3791
(Formerly OCA IPI 50Pepito v. CA, 369 Phil. 378, 396 (1999).
No. 15-4447-P),
51 Id., citing People v. Pagal, 169 Phil. 550,
January 29, 2019 -
MILAGROS P. 558 (1977).
MALUBAY, LEGAL
52Pepito, et al. v. CA, supra.
RESEARCHER II,
REGIONAL TRIAL 53 Gotis v. People, supra note 47, at 850-
COURT, BRANCH 270,
851, citing Romero v. People, 478 Phil. 606,
VALENZUELA CITY,
612-613 (2004).
Complainant, v.
HONORIO RAUL C. 54Gotis v. People, id. at 851.
GUEVARA, CLERK III,

55Act No. 4103, Section 1.
SAME COURT.,
Respondent.
56 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
G.R. No. 193534,

January 30, 2019 -
SPOUSES MANUEL
AND EVELYN TIO,
Back to Home | Back to Main
Petitioners, v. BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS,
Respondents.; G.R.
No. 194091, January
30, 2019 - BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, Petitioner,
v. GOLDSTAR
MILLING
CORPORATION
AND/OR SPOUSES
MANUEL AND EVELYN
TIO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 234528,

January 23, 2019 -
ISIDRO MIRANDA Y
PARELASIO,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 214906,

January 16, 2019 -
ABOSTA
SHIPMANAGEMENT
CORP., CIDO
SHIPPING COMPANY
LTD., AND ALEX S.
ESTABILLO,
Petitioners, v. DANTE
C. SEGUI,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 232806,

January 21, 2019 -
EDGARDO M.
AGUILAR, Petitioner,
v. ELVIRA J. BENLOT
AND SAMUEL L.
CUICO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 209116,

January 14, 2019 -
DANNY BOY C.
MONTERONA,
JOSELITO S.
ALVAREZ, IGNACIO S.
SAMSON, JOEY P.
OCAMPO, ROLE R.
DEMETRIO,* AND
ELPIDIO P. METRE,
JR.,** Petitioners, v.
COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS
PHILIPPINES, INC.
AND GIOVANNI
ACORDA,***
Respondents.
G.R. No. 240541,

January 21, 2019 -
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
REY BARRION Y
SILVA, Accused-
Appellant.
A.M. No. 18-08-69-

MTC, January 21,
2019 - RE:
DROPPING FROM THE
ROLLS OF MR.
STEVERIL* J.
JABONETE, JR.,
JUNIOR PROCESS
SERVER, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT
PONTEVEDRA,
NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL.
G.R. No. 226578,

January 28, 2019 -
AUGUSTIN
INTERNATIONAL
CENTER, INC.,
Petitioner, v.
ELFRENITO B.
BARTOLOME AND
RUMBY L. YAMAT,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 233336,

January 14, 2019 -
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
DON EMILIO CARIÑO
Y AGUSTIN A.K.A.
"DON EMILIO CARIÑO
AGUSTIN," Accused-
Appellants.
G.R. No. 211289 -

COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER, v. LA
FLOR DELA ISABELA,
INC., RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 239471 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v. JOSEPH CINCO
ARCIAGA A.K.A.
"JOSEPHUS CINCO
ARCIAGA," ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
A.M. No. P-19-3911

(Formerly OCA IPI
No. 13-4159-P) -
RURAL BANK OF
TALISAY (CEBU),
INC., REPRESENTED
BY ITS PRESIDENT,
ADELE V. VILLO,
COMPLAINANT, v.
MANUEL H. GIMENO,
SHERIFF IV, BRANCH
19, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, CEBU CITY,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 213323 -

TERESITA S. LAZARO,
DENNIS S. LAZARO,
MARIETA V. JARA,
ANTONIO P. RELOVA,
GILBERTO R.
MONDEZ, PABLO V.
DEL MUNDO, JR.,
AND ALSANEO F.
LAGOS,
PETITIONERS, v.
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF COA
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO. IV-A, AND COA
AUDIT TEAM LEADER,
PROVINCE OF
LAGUNA,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R.
No. 213324, January
22, 2019] EVELYN T.
VILLANUEVA,
PROVINCIAL
ACCOUNTANT OF THE
PROVINCE OF
LAGUNA,
PETITIONER, v.
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 205282 -

STEAG STATE
POWER, INC.
(FORMERLY STATE
POWER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION),
PETITIONER, v.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 211829 -

JACINTO J.
BAGAPORO,
PETITIONER, v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
A.M. No. P-19-3925

(Formerly OCA IPI
No. 16-4635-P) -
ASUNCION Y.
ARIÑOLA,
COMPLAINANT, v.
ANGELES D.
ALMODIEL, JR.,
INTERPRETER II,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES,
MASBATE CITY,
MASBATE,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 239521 -

PRIMO A. MINA,
FELIX BE VERA,
POMPEYO MAGALI,
BERNADETTE AMOR
AND PURIFICACION
DELA CRUZ,
PETITIONERS, v. THE
COURT OF APPEALS
AND RODOLFO C.
TANDOC,
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 238865 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v. BILLY ACOSTA,
ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 237809 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v. ROSALINA AURE Y
ALMAZAN AND GINA
MARAVILLA Y
AGNES,* ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
G.R. No. 232940 -

DENNIS LOAYON Y
LUIS, PETITIONER, v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 212107 -

KEIHIN-EVERETT
FORWARDING CO.,
INC., PETITIONER, v.
TOKIO MARINE
MALAYAN INSURANCE
CO., INC.** AND
SUNFREIGHT
FORWARDERS &
CUSTOMS
BROKERAGE, INC.,
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 231459 -

HEIRS OF PAULA C.
FABILLAR, AS
REPRESENTED BY
AUREO* FABILLAR,
PETITIONERS, v.
MIGUEL M. PALLER,
FLORENTINA P.
ABAYAN, AND
DEMETRIA P.
SAGALES,
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 211449 -

COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER, v.
TRANSFIELD
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
A.M. No. 18-03-03-

SB - RE: E-MAIL
COMPLAINT OF MA.
ROSARIO GONZALES
AGAINST HON.
MARIA THERESA
MENDOZA-ARCEGA,
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE,
SANDIGANBAYAN
AND HON. FLERIDA
Z. BANZUELA,
PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 51,
SORSOGON CITY,
SORSOGON.
G.R. No. 217978 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v. NANCY LASACA
RAMIREZ A.K.A.
"ZOY" OR "SOY"
ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 224548 -

MARLYN MONTON
NULLADA,
PETITIONER, v. THE
HON. CIVIL
REGISTRAR OF
MANILA, AKIRA ITO,
SHIN ITO AND ALL
PERSONS WHO HAVE
OR CLAIM ANY
INTEREST,
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 189162 -

POLO PLANTATION
AGRARIAN REFORM
MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE
(POPARMUCO),
REPRESENTED BY
SILANDO GOMEZ
AND ELIAS RAMOS,
PETITIONER, v.
RODOLFO T. INSON,
CESO III, AS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, REGION VII
- CEBU CITY,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 235873 -

ENRIQUE MARCO G.
YULO, PETITIONER, v.
CONCENTRIX DAKSH
SERVICES
PHILIPPINES, INC.,*
RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 9917,

January 14, 2019 -
NORBERTO S.
COLLANTES,
Complainant, v. ATTY.
ANSELMO B. MABUTI,
Respondent.
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

Isidro P. Miranda vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Isidro P. Miranda vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isidro P. Miranda vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO,…spondent.

: January 2019 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 19/08/2020, 12)29 AM

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

January 2019 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 >

G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA

G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019

ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO, Petitioner, v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

A. REYES, JR., J.:

This treats of the Petition for Review on Certiorari1

the reversal of the Decision2 dated May 15, 2017, and

Resolution3 dated September 13, 2017, rendered by

On September 28, 2011, an Information was filed

That on or about the 14th day of August

independent of the will of the accused. To

When arraigned on December 6, 2011, Miranda

reverse trial of case.5

The antecedent facts show that in the evening of

the latter's home.6

While Pilo was on his way home, Miranda suddenly

latter parried the attack with his left arm.7

In an attempt to stop Miranda, Damaso threw a stone

In his defense, Miranda admitted that he hacked Pilo

done in self-defense.9 He narrated that on August 14,

hurled at their house. Miranda peeped through the

other.10 Miranda asked Pilo if something was wrong,

stones.11 According to Miranda, Pilo approached him

Pilo's oncoming attack. 12

At this instance, Damaso, arrived and grappled with

Ruling of the Trial Court

On January 7, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

rendered a Decision13 finding Miranda guilty beyond

to the common experience of man.14 The RTC further

Pilo was legally justified.15 The dispositive portion of

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING,

the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Miranda filed an appeal

On May 15, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed

Decision17 affirming the conviction meted by the trial

Pilo with a bolo.18

However, the CA held that although the act may not be

be appreciated as sufficient provocation on the part of

wife and children were placed in danger.19

However, the CA held that there was no voluntary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

The main issue raised for the Court's resolution rests

on whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of

In Miranda's petition for review, he staunchly maintains

MANALASTAS Y offender used, and the nature, location, and number of

GAPASIN, ACCUSED- wounds he inflicted on his victim.24

G.R. No. 234323 - quoting Rivera v. People,26 enumerated the factors

immediately after the killing of the victim;

PEOPLE OF THE Miranda continuously made several thrusts against Pilo,

PHILIPPINES, while the latter was already sprawled on the ground.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. This caused Pilo to sustain two additional wounds.

BENJAMIN A. These deep gashes measured four inches long by one-

Appellant. forearm. In fact, these continuous attacks were