NOVICIO V. PEOPLE (CRIMINAL)

The settled rule is that the determination of whether or not the accused acted in SELF-DEFENSE, complete or incomplete, is a factual issue. And equally entrenched is the legal aphorism that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are acccorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case.

We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no justification to deviate form the trial court's findings and its conclusion. we find that the petitioner has not adequately discharged his burden of proving the elements of self-defense.

It is petitioner's postulation that the lone gunshot wound of Mario does not establish intent to kill. However, the number of wounds inflicted is not the sole consideration in proving intent to kill. In Adame v. CA, a single gunshot wound was inflicted on the victim but this Court convicted the accused therein of frustrated homicide. Just like in Adame, it is worth stressing that petitioner used a gun in this case, and, if not for Mario's act of shoving the table at him, petitioner could have fired a second shot. Furthermore, the nature and location of the would should also be considered. The doctor's positive testimony was that the wound sustained by Mario could cause death if left untreated. In fact, the first hospital to which Mario was brought could not fully cater to the medical treatment required, and Mario had to be transferred to the Center. This Court has repeatedly held that if the victim's wound would normally cause death, then the last act necessary to produce homicide would have been performed and death would have resulted were it not for the timely medical attention given to the victim.