G.R. No.
204659, September 19, 2016
JESTER MABUNOT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
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).5 chanrobleslaw
Antecedents
The Information indicting the petitioner reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded "not guilty."7 chanrobleslaw
In the course of the trial, the prosecution offered the testimonies of: (a) private
complainant Shiva Baguiwan (Shiva); (b) Mercy Baguiwan, Shiva's mother; (c) Melanie
Lipawen (Melanie)8 and James Aquino (James), students at Butigue National High
School (BNHS); (d) PO2 Naida Dumjalan, Women and Children's Desk Officer assigned
to handle Shiva's complaint; and (e) Dr. Jessie Guimbatan, government doctor who
provided with Shiva medical treatment.9 chanrobleslaw
The evidence for the prosecution sought to establish that Shiva and the petitioner were
classmates at BNHS. On September 14, 2007, at around 11:00 a.m., Shiva and her
group were sewing inside the classroom when the petitioner, who was then under the
influence of alcohol, arrived. The petitioner twisted the arm of Michael Fontanilla,
strangled James and boxed William Thomas (William). The rest of their classmates ran
away, but the petitioner went after them. He boxed Shiva on her left flank leaving the
latter with a fractured rib. Shiva passed out and was thereafter taken to Potia District
Hospital, where she stayed for two days. Before finally leaving, the petitioner also
boxed Dennis Kenept (Dennis). Back then, Shiva was 14 years old, while the petitioner
was 19. The petitioner dropped out from BNHS after the incident.10 chanrobleslaw
On its part, the defense presented the following as witnesses: (a) the petitioner; (b)
Consolacion Saludo (Consolacion), teacher at BNHS; (c) Dennis; and (d) Eva Joy
Malindao (Eva), also a student at BNHS.11 chanrobleslaw
The testimonies of the defense witnesses tend to prove that on September 14, 2007, at
around 10:30 a.m., the class, to which both Shiva and the petitioner belonged, was
doing its Technology Livelihood Education project. William suddenly threw an object at
the petitioner's back. The petitioner reacted by boxing William. When the petitioner
stepped out of the room, Dennis followed him and a fist fight ensued between the two.
Shiva came to pacify them, but she was shoved, causing her to fall to the ground. The
petitioner posited that since he and Dennis were grappling at that time, there cannot be
any certainty as to who actually injured Shiva.12 chanrobleslaw
Ruling of the RTC
On April 15, 2010, the RTC rendered its Judgment, the fallo of which reads as
follows:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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.
SO ORDERED.13 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The RTC convicted the petitioner on the basis of the grounds cited below: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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.14
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Ruling of the CA
In the appeal filed before the CA, the petitioner claimed that the injury inflicted on
Shiva was not intentional or deliberate. The petitioner insisted that he could not have
adopted a deliberate design to injure Shiva since he was trading punches with Dennis.
Further, Article 26515 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and not R.A. No. 7610, should
be the applicable provision. A single and unintended act of shoving Shiva while the
petitioner was engaged in a fist fight with Dennis can hardly be considered as within the
definition of child abuse under R.A. No. 7610.16 chanrobleslaw
On April 20, 2012, the CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty imposed and
the damages awarded. The CA instead sentenced the petitioner to suffer imprisonment
of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years, eight months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
maximum, and to pay Shiva actual damages in the amount of P18,428.00.17 chanrobleslaw
The CA explained its disquisition, viz: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[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.
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
xxxx
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.
xxxx
[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
xxxx
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.
xxxx
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.
xxxx
x x x [James] likewise averred that he personally saw the [petitioner] boxed [sic]
[Shiva]. He said: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxxx
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).
xxxx
Under 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:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;
xxxx
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.
xxxx
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)
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in the herein
assailed Resolution19 dated October 29, 2012.
Issues
Unperturbed, the petitioner presents for the Court's resolution the issues of whether or
not the CA committed reversible errors in (1) ruling that the injury inflicted on Shiva
was intentional and deliberate, and (2) applying the much higher penalty provided for
under Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610, instead of Article 265 of the RPC for slight physical
injuries.20
chanrobleslaw
The petitioner claims that he and Dennis were trading punches when they saw Shiva
slump to the ground. In Dennis' testimony, he was uncertain as to who actually shoved
Shiva. Thus, the injury sustained by Shiva merely resulted from an accident and is not
within the contemplation of child abuse under R.A. No. 7610.21 chanrobleslaw
The petitioner also posits that Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610 penalizes acts of child abuse
which are not covered by the RPC. Assuming arguendo that the petitioner caused
Shiva's injury, Article 265 of the RPC should instead be applied.22 chanrobleslaw
In its Comment,23 the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the petitioner raises
factual issues. Besides, even if the merits of the petition are to be considered, the
prosecution witnesses, namely, Melanie and James, positively identified the petitioner
as the one, who had boxed Shiva. The RTC and CA properly accorded probative weight
to the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
Ruling of the Court
The Court affirms the conviction and the sentence, but imposes interest on the amount
of actual damages awarded by the CA.
On the propriety of the petitioner's conviction
In Villareal v. Aliga,24 the Court declared:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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.25
cralawredchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In 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.
Besides, even if the Court were to exercise leniency, a recalibration of the parties'
evidence would yield the same result. For one, the defense did not impute and prove
any ill motives on the part of the eyewitnesses in testifying against the petitioner. Note
that the two witnesses were classmates of both the petitioner and Shiva, and they saw
at close range what had transpired. Further, the defense witnesses failed to amply
refute the statements of Melanie and James. Consolacion was 20 meters away from
where the fist fight between the petitioner and Dennis took place. She also admitted
that she was not wearing her eyeglasses then. On the other hand, Eva's statements on
what she saw were unclear. Anent Dennis' narrations, he admitted his uncertainty as to
who had shoved Shiva to the ground. However, Melanie and James were categorical in
identifying the petitioner as the one who boxed Shiva. Dennis' declaration of
uncertainty pales in comparison to Melanie and James' positive testimonies. Dennis was
then trading punches with the petitioner, and understandably, his recollection of the
details of the event was not as comprehensive.
The petitioner also posits that since he and Dennis were exchanging punches then, he
could not have made a deliberate design to injure Shiva. Without intent to harm Shiva,
the petitioner insists that he deserves an acquittal.
The foregoing argument is untenable.
"When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se,
even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly
established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed."26 chanrobleslaw
The petitioner was convicted of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610, a
special law. However, physical abuse of a child is inherently wrong, rendering material
the existence of a criminal intent on the part of the offender.
In the petitioner's case, criminal intent is not wanting. Even if the Court were to
consider for argument's sake the petitioner's claim that he had no design to harm
Shiva, when he swang his arms, he was not performing a lawful act. He clearly
intended to injure another person. However, it was not Dennis but Shiva, who ended up
with a fractured rib. Nonetheless, the petitioner cannot escape liability for his error.
Indeed, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.27 chanrobleslaw
On the application of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610
The petitioner avers that Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610 only penalizes acts
of child abuse which are not covered by the RPC. He insists that the acts complained of
should fall under Article 265 of the RPC, which imposes a lighter penalty.
The claim is unpersuasive.
Article 265 of the RPC punishes physical injuries in general. On the other hand, R.A. No.
7610 is intended to "provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other conditions, prejudicial to
their development."28 Child abuse refers to the infliction of physical or psychological
injury, cruelty to, or neglect, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child.29 Physical injury
includes but is not limited to lacerations, fractured bones, turns, internal injuries,
severe injury or serious bodily harm suffered by a child.30chanrobleslaw
It is clear that Shiva was 14 years old when she received the blow, which fractured her
rib. Being a child, she is under the protective mantle of R.A. No. 7610, which punishes
maltreatment of a child, whether the sam habitual or not.31 Moreover, the
Implementing Rules and Regulation R.A. No. 7610 even explicitly refer to fractured
bones as falling within coverage of physical injuries, which may be inflicted on a child,
for which an accused shall be held liable. Further, under R.A. No. 7610, s penalties are
prescribed to deter and prevent violations of its provisions.
On the penalties imposed by the courts a quo
The RTC imposed upon the petitioner an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, nine
(9) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as minimum, to seven (7)
years and four (4) months of prision mayor as maximum.
Subsequently, the CA modified the sentence to 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.
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (IS Law)32 provides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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.33 chanrobleslaw
In Sanchez v. People, et al.,34 the Court is emphatic that:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[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.
As to the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, Section the IS Law provides that it
shall be within the range of the per next lower to that prescribed for the offense. The
penalty next to prision mayor in its minimum period is prision correccional maximum
period. The CA imposed four (4) years, nine (9) months eleven (11) days of prision
correccional, which falls within the maximum range thereof. The CA imposed the
minimum indeterminate penalty w the allowable range, and the Court now finds no
compelling reaso modify the same.
On Damages
The Court agrees with the CA's award of actual damages lieu of the temperate damages
imposed by the RTC. To conform, however, to recent jurisprudence, the Court deems it
proper to impos i an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the actual damages
awarded to Shiva to be computed from the date of the finality of this Resolution until
fully paid.37
chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution dated
April 20, 2012 and October 29, 2312, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No. 33353, subject to
the MODIFICATION that the actual damages in the amount of P18,428.00 to be paid
by petitioner, Jester Mabunot, to the private complainant, Shiva Baguiwan shall be
subject to an interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this
Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
