Posted By James L. Jalon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
FACTS:
On October 7, 1998, the petitioner, who at times worked as a farmer, baker and trisicad driver, was charged with frustrated homicide. After the Information was filed, the petitioner remained at large and was only arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation on October 7, 2002. The petitioner relied on denial and alibi as defenses. He claimed that from September 2, 1998 to October 2002, he and his family resided in Buenavista, Agusan del Norte. Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City, where the hacking incident occurred, is about four (4) hours drive away.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
WON there was homicidal intent in the petitioner's hacking towards Benigno's neck.
HELD:
HELD:
The instant petition raises factual issues which are beyond the scope of a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Century Iron Works, Inc. and Benito Chua v. Eleto B. Bañas is instructive anent what is the subject of review in a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, viz:
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal from a ruling of a lower tribunal on pure questions of law. It is only in exceptional circumstances that we admit and review questions of fact.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the question must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.
Century Iron Works, Inc. and Benito Chua v. Eleto B. Bañas is instructive anent what is the subject of review in a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, viz:
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal from a ruling of a lower tribunal on pure questions of law. It is only in exceptional circumstances that we admit and review questions of fact.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the question must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.
