That on or about the 26th day of May, 2002, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to cause damage, and motivated by hate and revenge and other evil motives, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously bump the rear portion of a Honda CRV car bearing Plate No. APS-222 driven by Pedro N. Ang, thus, causing damage thereon in the amount of P200.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused ROBERT TAGUINOD y AYSON GUILTY of Malicious Mischief penalized under Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing accused to FOUR (4) MONTHS imprisonment.
Accused Robert Taguinod y Ayson is likewise ordered to pay complainant Pedro Ang the amount of P18,191.66, representing complainant's participation in the insurance liability on the Honda CRV, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the amount of P25,000.00 as attorney's fees; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 8 November 2006 is AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the petition for review filed in this case is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed decision dated September 6, 2007 of Branch 143 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City in Criminal Case No. 07-657 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:SO ORDERED.10
- The petitioner is penalized to suffer the penalty of 30 days imprisonment;
- The award of moral damages is reduced to P20,000.00; and
- The award of attorney's fee is reduced to P10,000.00.
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN UPHOLDING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION.
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.15
Defense witness Mary Susan Lim Taguinod is wanting in credibility. Her recollection of the past events is hazy as shown by her testimony on cross-examination. While she stated in her affidavit that the Honda CRV's "left side view mirror hit our right side view mirror, causing our side view mirror to fold" (par. 4, Exhibit "3"), she testified on cross-examination that the right side view mirror of the Vitara did not fold and there was only a slight dent or scratch. She initially testified that she does not recall having submitted her written version of the incident but ultimately admitted having executed an affidavit. Also, while the Affidavit stated that Mary Susan Lim Taguinod personally appeared before the Notary Public, on cross-examination, she admitted that she did not, and what she only did was to sign the Affidavit in Quezon City and give it to her husband. Thus, her inaccurate recollection of the past incident, as shown by her testimony on cross-examination, is in direct contrast with her Affidavit which appears to be precise in its narration of the incident and its details. Such Affidavit, therefore, deserves scant consideration as it was apparently prepared and narrated by another.
Thus, the Court finds that the prosecution has proven its case against the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt.19
(1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another;
(2) That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction;
(3) That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it.20
The following were not disputed: that there was a collision between the side view mirrors of the two (2) vehicles; that immediately thereafter, the wife and the daughter of the complainant alighted from the CRV and confronted the accused; and, the complainant, in view of the hostile attitude of the accused, summoned his wife and daughter to enter the CRV and while they were in the process of doing so, the accused moved and accelerated his Vitara backward as if to hit them.
The incident involving the collision of the two side view mirrors is proof enough to establish the existence of the element of "hate, revenge and other evil motive." Here, the accused entertained hate, revenge and other evil motive because to his mind, he was wronged by the complainant when the CRV overtook his Vitara while proceeding toward the booth to pay their parking fee, as a consequence of which, their side view mirrors collided. On the same occasion, the hood of his Vitara was also pounded, and he was badmouthed by the complainant's wife and daughter when they alighted from the CRV to confront him for the collision of the side view mirrors. These circumstances motivated the accused to push upward the ramp complainant's CRV until it reached the steel railing of the exit ramp. The pushing of the CRV by the Vitara is corroborated by the Incident Report dated May 26, 2002 prepared by SO Robert Cambre, Shift-In-Charge of the Power Plant Mall, as well as the Police Report. x x x21
Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the evidence for the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the foregoing elements. First, the hitting of the back portion of the CRV by the petitioner was clearly deliberate as indicated by the evidence on record. The version of the private complainant that the petitioner chased him and that the Vitara pushed the CRV until it reached the stairway railing was more believable than the petitioner's version that it was private complainant's CRV which moved backward and deliberately hit the Vitara considering the steepness or angle of the elevation of the P2 exit ramp. It would be too risky and dangerous for the private complainant and his family to move the CRV backward when it would be hard for him to see his direction as well as to control his speed in view of the gravitational pull. Second, the act of damaging the rear bumper of the CRV does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction. Lastly, when the Vitara bumped the CRV, the petitioner was just giving vent to his anger and hate as a result of a heated encounter between him and the private complainant.
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code.24
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 13-152.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dican, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; id. at 35-44.
3 Id. at 46-47.
4 Id. at 91-98.
5 Id. at 61-67.
6 CA Decision, p. 8, rollo, p. 37.
7 Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. Any person who shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.
8 Rollo, p. 67.
9 Id. at 98.
10 Id. at 44.
11 Id. at 154-155.
12 Id. at 156-164.
13 Id. at 164.
14 Dated November 9, 2009, id. at 194-210.
15 Id. at 19.
16 People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009, 580 SCRA 617, 624, citing People v. Clidoro, 449 Phil. 142, 149 (2003).
17 People v. De Leon, 428 Phil. 556, 572 (2002), citing People v. Baltazar, 405 Phil. 340 (2001); People v. Barrameda, 396 Phil. 728 (2000).
18 People v. Roma, G.R. No. 147996, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 413, 420, citing People v. San Gabriel, G.R. No. 107735, February 1, 1996, 253 SCRA 84, 93.
19 MeTC Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 66
20 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, p. 326.
21 MeTC Decision, p. 5, rollo, p. 65. (Emphasis supplied.)
22 CA Decision, pp. 7-8, id. at 41-42. (Emphasis supplied.)
23 G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 461.
24 Id. at 489, citing Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 261, 266 (Emphasis supplied.)
25 Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. (Emphasis supplied.)
26 TSN, August 26, 2003, p. 30.
27 Id.
28 Quezon City Government v. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 243, 256.
29 TSN, August 26, 2003, p. 27.
30 403 Phil. 572, 597 (2001). Also see Concept Placement Resources, Inc. v. Funk, G.R. No. 137680, February 6, 2004, 422 SCRA 317.