ADLAWAN v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 197645 | 2018 - Synopsis Only
CARLOS JAY ADLAWAN, petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 197645, THIRD DIVISION, April 18, 2018,
Ponente: MARTIRES, J.
Doctrine:
In criminal cases for 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. In this case, 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.
Synopsis:
Carlos Jay Adlawan was charged with Frustrated Homicide and Attempted Robbery after attacking his stepmother with a katana. The victim, Georgia, sustained multiple deep hack wounds on her head, neck, and abdomen, among other parts of her body. The prosecution argued that Adlawan had the intent to kill, as evidenced by the means used and the number of wounds inflicted.
The case of Carlos Jay Adlawan underscores the importance of intent in criminal cases, especially those involving serious offenses such as homicide. In this case, the prosecution argued that Adlawan had the intent to kill his stepmother, Georgia, based on the means he used and the number of wounds inflicted.
According to the court, in criminal cases for frustrated homicide, the intent to kill is often inferred from various factors, including the means used and the nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted. In this case, the prosecution presented evidence that Georgia sustained multiple deep hack wounds on various parts of her body, indicating that Adlawan had the intent to kill.
Furthermore, the gravity of Georgia's wounds was clearly shown by the photographs presented by the prosecution, as well as the medical certificate. The victim's doctor even testified that Georgia could have died if no medical attention was given to her. The court found that Adlawan intended to kill Georgia and that the injuries she sustained were fatal and would have caused her death if not for the timely medical intervention.
The defense argued that Adlawan did not have the intent to kill his stepmother and that the injuries sustained were not so serious as to cause her death. However, the court found that the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to establish Adlawan's intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the end, the court acquitted Adlawan of Attempted Robbery but found him guilty of Frustrated Homicide. The case highlights the importance of intent in criminal cases and how it can be inferred from various factors such as the means used and the number of wounds inflicted.
In conclusion, the case of Carlos Jay Adlawan is a reminder of the gravity of criminal offenses such as homicide and the need to establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt. It also shows the importance of presenting evidence that can prove the defendant's intent, such as the means used and the number of wounds inflicted. Overall, the case serves as a warning that those who commit serious offenses will face the full force of the law and be held accountable for their actions.
Nature of Petition:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the 15 September 2010 Decision and 15 June 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00555. The 15 September 2010 Decision affirmed with modification the 17 August 2006 Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 5, in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-68828 and CBU-68829, which found herein petitioner Carlos Jay Adlawan (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide; while the 15 June 2011 Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration[4] of the 15 September 2010 Decision, and the Joint Motion to Dismiss and to Admit Private Complainant's Affidavit of Recantation and Desistance.
Dispositive postion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 15 September 2010 Decision and 15 June 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00555 are AFFIRMED.