Calica v. People G.R. No. 231106, August 14, 2017

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 231106, August 14, 2017. JIMMY CALICA Y DUCLAYAN, PETITIONER V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 231106 - Jimmy Calica y Duclayan, petitioner v. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS: Petitioner alleges that the victim's act of punching him coupled with insulting and offensive remarks against his daughter constitute sufficient provocation to enrage him. It was also sufficient to stir his wrath and obfuscate his thinking. He contends that the act of stabbing the victim is but an immediate and proximate reaction from someone who was physically attacked, and whose daughter's honor was insulted in his presence. He maintains the view that such a scenario is sufficient to trigger an uncontrollable burst of legitimate passion.

Petitioner wants the Supreme Court to review factual issues.

ISSUE: Should the Supreme Court review the factual background of this case?

HELD: The petition lacks merit. No, the Supreme Court should not review the factual background of this case.

The issue raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari is factual in nature since it requires a review of the probative value of the evidence of petitioner. Petitioner seeks this Court's review of the facts and appreciate the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation in his favor. This is improper since Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that the petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.

On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. This Court is not a trier of facts and while there are recognized exceptions which warrant a review of factual findings, none exists in this case. Petitioner was unable to overcome the burden of demonstrating that review is justified under the circumstances prevailing in their case.

ALSO SEE: Ladines v. People, G.R. No. 167333, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 83, 90.

Popular Posts