THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 226745, May 03, 2021
ELPEDIO RUEGO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ANTHONY M. CALUBIRAN, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Serious physical injuries contemplate physical deformity or the loss of a body part resulting in the alteration of one's physical appearance. The loss of a tooth, may, in most cases, be later repaired or replaced with an artificial tooth by a competent dentist. Thus, for the loss of a tooth to be considered within the scope of serious physical injuries, the circumstances surrounding its loss and whether it caused a physical deformity or permanent alteration of one's physical appearance must be examined on a case-to-case basis.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed Elpedio Ruego's conviction for Serious Physical Injuries under Article 263(3)4 of the Revised Penal Code.
In an October 27, 2005 Information,5 Elpedio Ruego (Ruego) was charged with serious physical injuries under Article 263(3) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 5th day of September, 2005 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused, with deliberate intent and without any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally box and hit Anthony M. Calubiran, thereby causing upon the latter fractured upper right central incisor, which fractured tooth caused him permanent deformity.6Ruego was arraigned on August 2, 2006,7 where he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused Elpedio Ruego guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Serious Physical Injuries as defined above and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correcional minimum and to pay the costs.The Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Iloilo found that Calubiran's to justify Ruego's infliction of injuries on Calubiran. It likewise found that "the loss of a front tooth due to a fist blow"18 was considered as a serious physical injury and is punished as such accordingly.
SO DECIDED.16
ARTICLE 263. Serious Physical Injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:Under this provision, the prosecution must prove the following elements: first, that the perpetrator wounds, beats, or assaults another; and second, that the person injured shall have gone through any of the following circumstances: (1) become deformed; (2) lost any other part of their body; (3) lost that body part's use; or (4) been ill or incapacitated for the work performance in which they were habitually engaged for a period of more than 90 days.
....
3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days[.]
The accused claimed that it was the complainant who first uttered "ano tulok mo?" ("what are you staring at?"), however, upon clarificatory questioning made by the court a quo, he admitted that it was he who first uttered those words.Petitioner cannot insist that respondent Calubiran's "dagger look"46 at him justified his actions. While self-defense was not pleaded here, petitioner's statement is analogous to arguing that there was unlawful aggression on respondent Calubiran's part that justified petitioner's act of punching him.
From this scenario, it can be deduced that it was the accused himself who insinuated the fight. It was he who first approached the victim and simultaneously delivered the punch that hit the latter. His claim that it was the complainant who was first to confront him is unbelievable considering that the latter was just a visitor to their place. In fact, as a customary gesture extended by the host to its visitor, the complainant was accompanied by SK Chairman June Alfred Altura in waiting for a passenger jeep to ride home.45
The equipoise rule states that where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.49Here, the evidence is not evenly balanced. Petitioner himself admits to having instigated the fight. He had no defensive wounds. His only evidence is his testimony that respondent Calubiran had looked at him the wrong way and had thrown the first punch, which petitioner evaded. On the other hand, witnesses stated that petitioner had to be pacified and that respondent Calubiran was the one who sustained injuries. There can be no other conclusion than that petitioner assaulted respondent Calubiran without sufficient provocation, resulting in his fractured tooth.
The principal question involved in this case is whether or not the physical injuries inflicted by the defendant upon the offended party constitute a violation of subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text of which reads as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryBalubar then proceeds to discuss several cases by the Supreme Court of Spain from 1884 to 1910, all holding that the loss of teeth was a "deformidad" or a disfigurement under the Revised Penal Code. However, it makes mention of a 1903 Spanish Supreme Court case where the loss of an incisor of a 70-year-old woman would not constitute as a disfigurement, since the loss of teeth was common to those of advanced age."Con la pena de prision correctional en sus grados minimo y medio, si de resultas de las lesiones el ofendido hubiere quedado deforme, o perdido cualquier otro miembro o quedado inutilizado de el, o hubiere estado incapacitido para su trabajo habitual o enfermo por mas de noventa dias."The official English translation is as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary"The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days."It will be noticed that the phrase "cualquier otro miembro" has been translated to read "any other part of his body". The Spanish text scarcely justifies that translation. "Cualquier otro miembro" is more accurately translated "any other member", meaning any other member than an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, which are those mentioned in subsection 2. "Deforme" is better translated "disfigured."52
In the case of People vs. Rodas (G. R. No. 31807, promulgated February 7,1930, not reported), where two of the offended party's lower incisors were knocked out, a division of this court consisting of four members refused to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain on the ground that they were obsolete because of the progress in dental science, and held that in the United States and the Philippine Islands the loss of one or more teeth need not be taken as a permanent physical abnormality; and in the case of People vs. Medina (G. R. No. 32113, promulgated on the same date and by the same division, not reported), it was held that the loss of four teeth did not constitute a disfigurement within the meaning of the law, because it was not permanent; that the disfigurement was not permanent, because the four natural teeth lost by the offended party had been substituted by artificial teeth. The defendant was sentenced to suffer thirty days of arresto menor and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P60, the cost of the false teeth.Balubar, however, found these Division cases unsatisfactory and proceeded to hold that the loss of teeth impairs one's appearance, and that the offender must take liability even when the disfigurement could be lessened by some artificial means:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We have not found any decision of this court in banc that is in point.53
The Rodas and Medina cases, supra, were decided upon the finding that there was no disfigurement because the injuries were not permanent, since the teeth that were broken out could be substituted with artificial teeth. In our opinion this was not a correct interpretation of the law. The injury contemplated by the Code is an injury that cannot be repaired by the action of nature, and if the loss of the teeth is visible and impairs the appearance of the offended party, it constitutes a disfigurement. The fact that he may, if he has the necessary means and so desires, have artificial teeth substituted for the natural teeth he has lost does not repair the injury, although it may lessen the disfigurement. The case of a child or an old person is an exception to the rule.Justice Malcolm vigorously dissented against the majority "considering the ease with which an injury of this nature could be remedied by any reputable dentist.55 He mentions People v. Oh Suilay,56 a case that appears to have been ignored by the majority, which considered the loss of two teeth as less serious physical injuries:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
One who unlawfully wounds another is responsible for the consequences of his act. If as a result thereof, the offended party is impaired in his appearance in such a way that the disfigurement cannot be removed by nature, the person causing the injuries is responsible for the disfigurement, and he is not relieved of that responsibility because the offended party might, if he had the means, lessen the disfigurement by some artificial contrivance.
The offended party in the case at bar was twenty-five years old, and he was conspicuously disfigured by the loss of four front teeth. We are therefore of the opinion that the defendant is guilty of a violation of subsection 3 of article 263 of the Revised Penal Code.54
In the case of People vs. Oh Suilay (G. R. No. 40699, p. 1024, post), the information alleged that various blows had caused the loss of two teeth producing a deformity. The evidence substantiated this allegation and on appeal to this court it was specifically found as a fact that the injured party received several blows "one of which knocked out two of his teeth." The Solicitor-General, taking cognizance of the evidence to this effect, argued that the case fell under article 263 of the Revised Penal Code, but this court declining to follow this suggestion merely found the accused guilty of the crime of less serious physical injuries penalized by article 265 of the Revised Penal Code. The decision here referred to, it should be mentioned, was written by Justice Street of the first division And concurred in by Justices Abad Santos and Hull, and was promulgated on July 20 of this year.57More important, Justice Malcolm pointed out that while decisions of the Spanish Supreme Court were persuasive, they were not binding, and that this Court should take a more progressive stance in light of medical advances:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The majority decision lays great stress on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain. If it be desired to take into account these decisions, it should be recalled that according to the Supreme Court of Spain, by deformity is meant visible ugliness, permanent and visible physical abnormality. (5 Viada, Codigo Penal Comentado, 144.) If this doctrine is correct, the breaking of one or more teeth need not produce permanent and visible deformity, for any dentist can fill or replace such teeth. Moreover, while decisions coming from the Supreme Court of Spain are entitled to persuasive respect just as decisions coming from any other country are entitled to similar respect, they are no longer absolutely binding on the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and this court is at liberty to take a progressive stand in interpreting our Revised Penal Code.58In hindsight, this Court could not possibly continue upholding Balubar's rationale. The physical injury, as stated in the Revised Penal Code, must be of such serious nature that it cannot be restored through medical means. As Justice Malcolm pointed out, the deformity contemplated by law is disfigurement, or "visible ugliness, permanent[,] and visible physical abnormality."59
SEC. 3. Community Service. - Article 88a of the Act No. 3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows:On October 6, 2020, this Court promulgated the Guidelines in the Imposition of Community Service as Penalty in Lieu of Imprisonment, which provides that:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"ART. 88a. Community Service. - The court in the discretion may, in lieu of service in jail, require that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor may be served by the defendant by rendering community service in the place where the crime was committed, under such terms as the court shall determine, taking into consideration the gravity of offense and the circumstances of the case, which shall be under the supervision of a probation officer: Provided, That the court will prepare an order imposing the community service, specifying the number of hours to be worked and the period within which to complete the service. The order is then referred to the assigned probation officer who shall have responsibility of the defendant.
"The defendant shall likewise be required to undergo rehabilitative counseling under the social welfare and development office of the city or municipality concerned with the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). In requiring community service, the court shall consider the welfare of the society and the reasonable probability that the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering a public service.
"Community service shall consist of any actual physical activity which inculcates civic consciousness, and is intended towards the improvement of a public work or promotion of a public service.
"If the defendant violates the terms of the community service, the court shall order his/her re-arrest and the defendant shall serve the full term of the penalty, as the case may be, in jail, or in the house of the defendant as provided under Article 88. However, if the defendant has fully complied with the terms of the community service, the court shall order the release of the defendant unless detained for some other offenses.
"The privilege of rendering community service in lieu of service in jail shall be availed of only once."71
If the accused is sentenced with a penalty higher than arresto menor or arresto mayor, and on appeal the penalty was lowered to arresto menor or arresto mayor, which became final and executory, the accused may, upon written application with the court of origin, seek community service in lieu of imprisonment, which may be acted upon subject to the provisions of these guidelines.Considering that the accused must first apply for community service in the court of origin, this Court retains the imposable penalty of arresto menor, pending such application.
With respect hereto, in no case shall community service be allowed if the defendant is a habitual delinquent.72
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-11.
2 Id. at 80-92. The January 26, 2016 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maximo and Pablito A. Perez of the Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 Id. at 102-104. The July 18, 2016 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maximo and Pablito A. Perez of the Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 263(3) states:
ARTICLE 263. Serious Physical Injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
....
3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days[.]
5Rollo, p. 14.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 17.
8 Id. at 18 and 20.
9 Id. at 18.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 20.
12 Id. at 19.
13 Id. at 21.
14 Id. at 20-21.
15 Id. at 17-23. The Decision was penned by Pairing Judge Alexis A. Zerrudo of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Iloilo City.
17 Id. at 23.
18 Id. at 23.
19 Id. at 36-41.
20 Id. at 48-50.
21 Id. at 80-92
22 Id. at 87.
23 Id. at 88.
24 Id. at 89.
25 Id. at 90.
26 Id. at 102-104.
27 Id. at 3-11. Comment (Rollo, pp. 133-146) was filed on February 20, 2017 while Reply (Rollo, pp. 151-158) was filed on August 25, 2017.
28 Id. at 5. See Rollo p. 83.
29Rollo pp. 6-7.
30 Id. at 7.
31 Id. at 8.
32 60 Phil. 698 (1934) [Per J Vickers, En Banc].
33 Id. at 138.
34 Id. at 139.
35 Id. at 139-141.
36 Id. at 143.
37 Id. at 153.
38See RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1.
39People v. Macasinag, 255 Phil. 279 (1989) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
40 CONST, art. III, sec. 14(2).
41See Macayan v. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
42 Id.
43 518 Phil. 196 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division].
44 Id. at 220 citing Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, 464 Phil. 650 (2004) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
45Rollo, p. 39.
46 Id. at 7.
47 677 Phil. 168, 178 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division] citing GREGORIO, FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 55-56 (9th ed., 1997).
48 784 Phil. 561 (2016) [Per J. Perez, Third Division].
49 Id. at 579 citing People v. Erguiza, 592 Phil. 363, 388 (2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
50 60 Phil. 698 (1934) [Per J. Vickers, En Banc].
51 Id. at 701.
52 Id. at 702-703.
53 Id. at 706.
54 Id. at 706-707.
55 J. Malcolm, Dissenting Opinion in People v. Balubar, 60 Phil. 698, 708 (1934) [Per J. Vickers, En Banc].
56 G. R. No. 40699, August 6, 1934 [Unsigned Resolution].
57 Id. at 711.
58 Id. at 709.
59 Id.
60Rollo, p. 138.
61 Justin Z. Laferrier and Robert Gailey, Advances in Lower-limb Prosthetic Technology, PHYS MED REHABIL CLIN N AM 21, 89 (2010).
62 Id.
63 Id. at 92.
64 J. Malcolm, Dissenting Opinion in People v. Balubar, 60 Phil. 698, 708 (1934) [Per J. Vickers, En Banc].
65Rollo, p. 40.
66 Id.
67 Id. at 19.
68 G. R. No. 40699, August 6, 1934 [Unsigned Resolution].
69 ARTICLE 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 attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
70 ARTICLE 266. Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.
71 Republic Act No. 11362 (2019), sec. 3.
72 A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC, October 6, 2020.cralawredlibrary