THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016
JESTER MABUNOT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 dated April 20, 2012 and October 29, 2012, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33353. The CA affirmed but modified only as to the penalty imposed and damages awarded the Judgment rendered on April 15, 2010 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc, Mountain Province, Branch 36, in Criminal Case No. 2227, convicting Jester Mabunot (petitioner) of violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610,4 Article VI, Section 10(a).5chanrobleslaw
That on or about Sept. 14, 2007, in the morning thereof, inside one of the classrooms at the Paracelis National High School, Butigue, Paracelis, Mountain Province, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [petitioner,] with intent to physically abuse and with cruelty, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, box Shiva Baguiwan, a minor who is 14 years and 5 months old, on the left side below her ribs[,] which caused the latter to lose consciousness, to the damage and prejudice of the said minor-victim.Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded "not guilty."7chanrobleslaw
CONTRARY TO LAW.6chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Wherefore, the Court finds that the [petitioner] is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged as principal by direct participation and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years, 9 months, and 11 days of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years and 4 months of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay [Shiva] the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.The RTC convicted the petitioner on the basis of the grounds cited below:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The evidence is positive and convincing that an act of cruelty and physical abuse has been inflicted upon a female child of fourteen (14) years of age by the [petitioner,] who was an adult of twenty (20) years of age. The credible evidence clearly demonstrates that the [petitioner] boxed the left side of [Shiva's] body causing excruciating pain[,] which made the latter feel dizzy and lose consciousness. The medical findings confirm that a rib of [Shiva] was fractured[,] which caused pain even long after the incident. It is not hard to imagine that a bare fist of a twenty[-]year[-]old male could fracture a rib of a frail fourteen[-]year[-]old female. The testimonies of [Shiva], [Melanie], and [James] are found to be clear, candid and convincing narrations of what happened, of how the [petitioner] maltreated and injured [Shiva].
x x x [T]here is nothing on record which shows any evil or improper motive on [the part of the prosecution witnesses] to falsely testify or frame up the [petitioner,] hence, said testimonies are given full faith and credence x x x. The physical and medical evidence[,] which show that [Shiva] suffered rib fracture that caused great pain[,] highly corroborate and confirm that [Shiva] was hurt by the [petitioner] with a hard fist blow, which made her unconscious and [led her to] be hospitalized.
x x x [T]he defense of the [petitioner] that he did not box [Shiva], but that the latter fell to the ground when she was shoved as she tried to pacify the former and [Dennis,] who were exchanging blows and grappling with each other, has to be taken with a grain of salt. x x x [I]t is highly improbable that a young lass[,] who is not even related to the combatants [,] would dare to put herself at risk to serious and inevitable injury by trying to pacify two older male persons[,] who were exchanging hard blows. That would not conform to ordinary human experience; the natural thing for the young girl was to shout or run[,] which [Shiva] did but the [petitioner] still got near and boxed her.
[It] is also highly indicated and very credibly established by the evidence that the [petitioner] boxed and maltreated four other classmates. x x x All these indicate that the [petitioner] was on a rampage and had no qualm[s] about inflicting injury upon a helpless female classmate. At his age of twenty x x x, and in addition to the fact that he was under the influence of liquor, the [petitioner] easily terrorized and frightened his classmates. x x x The denial of the [petitioner] can not be accorded greater evidentiary value than the declarations of credible prosecution witnesses that the [petitioner] boxed [Shiva] x x x.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[T]he [petitioner] wants Us to weigh the credibility of prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witnesses, a task entrusted to the trial court. x x x [T]he trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in the herein assailed Resolution19 dated October 29, 2012.
It is observed that although [Dennis], [Eva] and [Consolacion] testified for the defense, the court a quo correctly ruled that their testimonies are incredible and unworthy of belief. x x x [Consolacion] testified that she went out of her classroom at about 10:30 o'clock in the morning of September 14, 2007 because of a commotion, but she failed to recognize the students involved in the brawl. x x x[The petitioner's] testimony revealed that Consolacion was at the second floor of the building, hence, supporting the court a quo's conclusion that Consolacion did not see the whole incident. x x x
x x x x Q: You said that you rushed outside, what did you see when you were outside? A: When I was at the porch, I have (sic) seen two boys boxing but I cannot recognize them because I haven't taken my eyeglasses and it was twenty (20) meters away. x x x x
x x x x
The court a quo likewise correctly dismissed [Dennis'] testimony as doubtful since on cross-examination, he stated that he does not know Michael Fontanilla and [James] when the [petitioner] himself revealed that Fontanilla and [James] were their classmates.
x x x [Eva], who was then a third year high school student at [BNHS], corroborated the [petitioner's] testimony that [Shiva] pacified [the petitioner] and [Dennis]. We note, however, that she mentioned that [Shiva] was shoved to the ground [w]hen their teacher, [Consolacion], shouted which caused [the petitioner] and [Dennis] to run away. A perusal of [Consolacion's] testimony, however, reveals that she directed the students around to pacify [the petitioner] and [Dennis] then she saw a lady going near the two boys fighting. Afterwhich, she did not witness any incident anymore since she had to pacify her students[,] who were then coming out of the classroom. There was no mention that she shouted at the [petitioner] or [Dennis] after [Shiva] fell to the ground. x x x
x x x [P]rosecution witness [Melanie] bolstered [Shiva's] claim that the [petitioner] boxed her. x x x.x x x [James] likewise averred that he personally saw the [petitioner] boxed [sic] [Shiva]. He said:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x Q: How far are you (sic) from [the petitioner] when you said you saw him boxed [sic] Shiva? A: Just near him. Q: Will you point from the witness stand? A: x x x More or less 2 meters. x x x xUnder Subsection (b), Section 3 of [R.A. No. 7610], child abuse refers to the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes any of the following:
x x x x Q: You said that [the petitioner] boxed Shiva, did you personally see [the petitioner] boxed [sic] Shiva? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What part of Shiva's body was hit? A: In (sic) the left rib. Q: How far are (sic) you from Shiva and [the petitioner] when you said you saw [the petitioner] boxed [sic] Shiva? A: x x x (4 to 5 meters). x x x x
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
x x x x
x x x [W]hen the incident happened, [Shiva] was a child entitled to the protection extended by R.A. No. 7610 x x x. As defined [by] law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether the same is habitual or not. The act of [the petitioner] of boxing [Shiva's] left flank falls squarely within this definition. x x x.
x x x As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child abuse and exploitation, [R.A. No. 7610] has stiffer penalties for their commission.
x x x x
In the absence of any modifying circumstances, We find that the proper penalty should be four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum[,] not the maximum term imposed by the trial court which is much higher, i.e., "seven (7) years and [four (4)] months of prision mayor." x x x.
x x x [Shiva] was able to prove actual damages in the amount of Php 18,428.00. The court a quo incorrectly awarded temperate damages in the amount of Php 25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount since such is proper only in cases when the victim died and no evidence of burial and funeral expenses was presented in the trial court.18 (Citations omitted and underlining ours)
It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem — beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. x x x It is not for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.25cralawredchanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn the case at bar, the RTC and the CA uniformly accorded probative value to the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, namely, Melanie and James, who positively identified the petitioner as the one who had boxed Shiva.
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.There are, however, instances when the penalties provided for in a special law adopt the nomenclature of the penalties under the RPC. In such cases, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under the RPC.33chanrobleslaw
[T]he penalty for Other Acts of Child Abuse is prision mayor in its minimum period. This penalty is derived from, and defined in, the [RPC]. Although R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the rules in the [RPC] for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied. Thus, where the special law adopted penalties from the [RPC], the [IS Law] will apply just as it would in felonies. In People v. Simon, the Court applied the first clause of Section 1 of the [IS Law] to cases of illegal drugs. In Cadua v. Court of Appeals, the Court applied the same principle to cases involving illegal possession of firearms. In those instances, the offenses were also penalized under special laws. Finally, in Dulla v. Court of Appeals, a case involving sexual abuse of a child as penalized under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the Court likewise applied the same first clause of the [IS Law]. x x x.35 (Citations omitted)In the petitioner's case, the maximum imposable penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period. The minimum period is fuither subdivided into three, to wit: (a) six (6) years and one (1) day to six (6) years and eight (8) months, as minimum; (b) six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months, as medium; and (c) seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to eight (8) years, as maximum.36 As there were no established attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the CA properly imposed the penalty of six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated February 17, 2016 vice Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.
1Rollo, pp. 4-12.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Ramon A. Cruz concurring; id. at 15-36.
3 Id. at 38-39.
4 SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT.
5Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions i Prejudicial to the Child's Development. -
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
x x x x
6Rollo, p. 16.
7 Id. at 17.
8 Sometimes appears in the records as "Melany."
9Rollo, p. 17.
10 Id. at 17-18.
11 Id. at 17.
12 Id. at 18-19.
13 Id. at 16.
14 Id. at 19-21.
15 Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to kill or offend the injured person, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender's parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons in authority, the deed does not constitute the crime of assault upon such person.
16Rollo, pp. 21-23.
17 Id. at 35.
18 Id. at 23-35.
19 Id. at 38-39.
20 Id. at 6.
21 Id. at 7-8, 10.
22 Id. at 10.
23 Id. at 45-49.
24 724 Phil. 47 (2014).
25cralawred Id. at 62, citing First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, 553 Phil. 540-541 (2007).
26Garcia v. CA, 519 Phil. 591, 596 (2006).
27 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 4(1).
28R.A. No. 7610, Section 2.
29 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610, Section 2(b).
30 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610, Section 2(d).
31R.A. No. 7610, Section 3(b); Please also see Sanchez v. People, et al., 606 Phil. 762, 775 (2209).
32 Act No. 4103, as amended, otherwise known as AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
33 Please see People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 55.
34 606 Phil. 762 (2009).
35 Id. at 780.
36 Please see Rosaldes v. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014, 737 SCRA 592, 608-609.
37People v. Cruz, 714 Phil. 390, 400-401 (2013).