G.R. No. 133813 - SALVADOR ANDALIS Y MORALLO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH XXXV, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment, with the following fallo : WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused Salvador Andalis y Morallo beyond reasonable doubt for having committed the crime of Homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of EIGHT (8) years of Prision Mayor as minimum to TWELVE (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum; to pay the heirs of deceased Pio Gonowon the amounts of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P142,023.00 actual and compensatory damages, P15,000.00 as reimbursement of attorneys fees and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Cost de oficio. [8] Not satisfied with the decision of the RTC, Andalis elevated his case to the Court of Appeals on the grounds that Embestro and Retrita are biased witnesses; that the justifying circumstance of defense of spouse was not considered; and that he was erroneously convicted of homicide. As mentioned at the outset, the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision finding that Andalis failed to prove the existence of the justifying circumstance of defense of spouse. In the instant petition, Andalis again asserts that the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to his invocation of the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative and in failing to consider that Gonowon was a drug user. The private complainant filed a Comment [9] dated August 31, 1998 praying that the instant petition be denied as it raises questions of fact which this Court may no longer review and injects new matters, i.e. , that Gonowon was a drug addict, which had not been raised in the courts below. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment [10] dated October 30, 1998 likewise praying for the denial of the instant petition on the same grounds raised by the private complainant. Andalis filed a Reply [11] dated April 13, 1999 arguing that the trial courts findings that Andalis had no reason to arm himself when he heard his wifes call for help, and that Gonowon was too intoxicated to attempt on the honor of Andalis wife and did not even know that Andalis wife was at home are erroneous. As a rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to reviewing errors of law [12] subject to well-defined exceptions. In Pastor v. PNB , [13] the Court summarized the exceptional circumstances that may warrant a review by this Court of the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals as follows: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals are based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the