THIRD
DIVISION
|
REYNALDO R. PILARES, SR., Petitioner, -versus
– PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
|
G.R. No.
165685 Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR.,*
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
In this
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[1]
petitioner Reynaldo R. Pilares, Sr. prays for the
reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 March 2000 in CA-G.R.
CR No. 20275,[2]
affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 77, Malolos, Bulacan,
in Criminal Case No. 1023-M-94, dated 13 November 1996,[3]
finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious
Physical Injuries under Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code.
On
That on or about the 16th
day of January 1994, in the municipality of Meycauyan,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with
knives and with intent to kill one Pedro Bantigue,
Jr. y Tanjutco, conspiring, confederating together
and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, attack, assault and stab with the said knives they were then
provided the said Pedro Bantigue, Jr. y Tanjutco, hitting the latter on the face, thereby inflicting
upon him serious physical injuries which required medical attendance for a
period of more than 30 days and incapacitated him from performing his customary
labor for the same period of time, which ordinarily would have caused the death
of the said Pedro Bantigue, Jr. y Tanjutco,
thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime
of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of
causes independent of their will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance
rendered to said Pedro Bantigue, Jr. y Tanjutco which prevented his death.
When
arraigned on
The
prosecution presented its case through the testimonies of its witnesses,
namely: Pedro T. Bantigue Jr. (private complainant),
Ernesto Mangunay (Mangunay)
and Dr. Francisco C. Rodriguez (Dr. Rodriguez).
Their
testimonies are summarized as follows:
Private
complainant works as a movie stuntman and a driver of an international firm. He is a resident of Brgy.
Malhacan, Meycauyan, Bulacan. He
testified that on
After
consuming the said bottles of beer, private complainant and Mangunay
bought two more bottles from the petitioner but this time no bickering ensued
between the private complainant and the petitioner. Still unsatisfied, they went back to the
petitioner’s store for the third time and bought two more bottles of beer. Again, no argument between the private
complainant and petitioner took place. When
private complainant and Mangunay returned the last empty
bottles of beer to petitioner, the latter asked the private complainant “O, ano pa?” In response thereto, the private complainant
demanded for his change and exclaimed “O,
ano pa?” to which the petitioner retorted “O, ano pa?” Suddenly,
the petitioner took his one-foot bladed weapon and stormed out of his store. The private complainant told Mangunay to stay put. When the petitioner was about to approach the
private complainant, Reynaldo Jr., armed with a kitchen knife, emerged and
followed the petitioner. The private
complainant ran away but the petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. chased him. After running one hundred meters, the private
complainant stumbled and fell on the ground. While private complainant was lying with his
back on the ground, Reynaldo Jr. approached him. When Reynaldo Jr. was about to stab the
private complainant, the latter tried to avoid the same by swerving his head to
the right side/direction. The private
complainant was hit by the kitchen knife on the right side of his face,
particularly, on the right cheekbone. Afterwards, the petitioner appeared and closed
in on the private complainant. The
private complainant was still lying with his back on the ground when the
petitioner tried to stab him. The
private complainant parried the same with his left foot and rolled over his
body until he reached the side of a fence. Later, the private complainant heard someone
shouting “Tama na
yan! Tigilan na yan!” Thereupon, the petitioner and Reynaldo Jr.
left him.[6]
After
regaining his strength, private complainant proceeded to his house and upon
arriving thereat, Mangunay brought him to the P9,000.00 for the professional fee of
the attending physician and that before the incident, his daily income as
stuntman in foreign films was five hundred pesos and above.[7]
Mangunay is the
private complainant’s brother-in-law. He
is an employee of Procter and Gamble Phils. and a resident of Sto. Nino, Meycauyan, Bulacan. He narrated
that on
Craving
for more, the private complainant returned to the store for the third time and
bought two more bottles. Thinking that
the engine of the car had already cooled down and was now in good condition,
they proceeded to the store and returned the bottles. When they were about to leave the store, the
petitioner spoke “O, ano?”
in a confrontational manner. Private
complainant answered back angrily “E, ano rin?” Reynaldo Jr. was
situated at the back of the petitioner and was observing the exchange of words.
Suddenly, the petitioner, armed with a knife, went out of his house to confront
the private complainant. Private
complainant told Mangunay to stay put. Later, Reynaldo Jr., also armed with a knife,
followed the petitioner. Mangunay opined that the private complainant did not notice
that petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. were armed with knives. Afterwards, the private complainant ran
towards the other side of the store prompting the petitioner and Reynaldo Jr.
to chase him. Mangunay
tried to seek assistance from other people in the neighborhood but to no avail.
Hence, he went inside the car and waited
for the private complainant.[9]
Dr.
Rodriguez is a physician-surgeon assigned to the Department of Surgery,
According
to Dr. Rodriguez, these injuries could have been caused by a dull-edged
instrument like a dull knife or any blunt instrument.[11] He described the said injuries as serious
physical injuries which, if not treated properly, may result in the private complainant
having a “squint,” “yung
tumatabingi ang mukha,” or “palaging kumikindat” since “the facial nerve is near the area and
there is a slight injury there.” He
explained that the lacerations were so deep that “you can almost see the
cheekbone” of the private complainant.[12]
He also
pointed out that the injuries suffered by the private complainant could not
have been caused by a kitchen knife, otherwise, the resulting wound would be an
incised wound which is clean cut in character. He stated that the wound could not have been
caused by the private complainant’s head or face hitting a metal object or a
rough pavement because if such was the case, there would have been more
abrasion than laceration on his face. He
opined that the private complainant was facing his attacker/s when the latter
struck him with an upward thrust.[13]
On the
other hand, the defense relied on the testimonies of the petitioner and
Reynaldo Jr. to refute the afore-stated charges. The following are their substantial
narrations:
Petitioner
is a resident of Brgy. Malhacan,
Meycauayan, Bulacan, where
he and his family own a two-storey house, the ground floor of which serves as a
mini-store. He knows the private
complainant because they are neighbors. Although the aunts of private complainant’s wife
are involved in some court cases against the petitioner and his family, the
petitioner and private complainant had no personal quarrels or disagreements
prior to the incident in question.[14]
Petitioner
testified that on
At
about
At
about
Thereafter,
the petitioner approached the private complainant. He noticed that the right face of the private
complainant had a “scratch and a reddish line across the right cheek, and,
something was foaming or bumubula-bula
at the back of his ear.” When the
private complainant tried to stand up, the petitioner kicked him three times
but none of those kicks landed on the private complainant. Petitioner admitted that he punched the
private complainant on the left jaw but the same was not that strong or solid.
Thus, the petitioner was surprised when the private complainant fell to the
ground after the punch.[18]
Petitioner
denied that he was armed with a knife during the chase and confrontation with
the private complainant. According to
him, he was then merely carrying a “plastic material wrapped in a newspaper around
one foot and a half [in size] with a chisel-like edge which he used in picking
ice and killing rats.”[19] He admitted that he was holding such object in
his right hand when he, using the same hand, punched the private complainant on
his left jaw.[20] He, however, denied that such object had touched,
hit or slashed the face of the private complainant since he was holding it
“vertically” and thus cannot in any way inflict injury on the private
complainant.[21] Petitioner alleged that his son, Reynaldo Jr.,
had no participation whatsoever in the verbal tussle in the store and in the
subsequent chase and confrontation between him and the private complainant;
that Reynaldo Jr. was sleeping at the upper part of the house during the said
events; and that he was already on his way home after the confrontation with
the private complainant when he met Reynaldo Jr.[22]
Reynaldo
Jr. works as a Field Representative of Universal Sales Corporation. He testified that petitioner is his father. He narrated that he was sleeping at the upper
part of their house while his parents and elder sister were downstairs when the
incident occurred; that at about 1:00 in the morning, his elder sister, Perlita Pilar Pilares,
woke him up and told him to follow the petitioner as the latter and the private
complainant were quarreling; that he immediately went out of the house to
follow the petitioner; that when he was about one post away from their house,
he met the petitioner and asked the latter on what had transpired; that the
petitioner told him “Let’s go home and nothing of importance had happened”;
that when they were already home, the petitioner explained that the private
complainant was challenging him to a fight as early as 10:00 in the evening;
that late in the morning, the petitioner pointed to him the place of the
incident; and that he did not see bloodstains in the area where the private
complainant allegedly tripped and fell.[23]
On
It
opined that the private complainant had implicated Reynaldo Jr. in the incident
because if he succeeded in having Reynaldo Jr. convicted, it would bring more
harm and damage to the Pilares family. It took note of the fact that the petitioner
was already 66 years old while Reynaldo Jr. was employed in a prestigious firm
and was presumed to have a bright future. It also ruled that there was no convincing
evidence showing that the petitioner had intended to kill the private
complainant and that there was conspiracy between the petitioner and Reynaldo
Jr. to kill the private complainant. The
fallo of
the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding
accused Reynaldo Pilares, Sr. guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious Physical Injuries, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
FOUR (4) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY OF ARRESTO MAYOR TO FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2)
MONTHS OF PRISION CORRECIONAL and to pay Pedro Bantigue,
Jr. the sum of NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS
(P9,133.50) in reimbursement of actual medical expenses incurred.
The guilt of accused
Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. not having been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, said accused is acquitted of the offense charged. The
Municipal Treasurer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, is ordered to release to the said accused the cash
bond which he posted for his provisional liberty under O.R. No. 459823 dated
Petitioner
appealed the foregoing decision to the Court of Appeals. On
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the court a quo dated
Petitioner
filed the present petition on the following grounds:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN NOT ADHERING TO SEC. 2 RULE 133 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT OR
DECLARING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE HONOROBALE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
CONSIDERING THAT THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT IS UNFOUNDED AND THERE EXIST
SPECIAL OR COMPELLING REASONS FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING.
III.
APPELLANT’S CASE DESERVES A THOROUGH
RECONSIDERATION AND RE-EVALUATION TO AVERT GRAVE INJUSTICE TO AN OLD AND SICKLY
MAN (75 YEARS OF AGE) WHO IS INNOCENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.
Since
the first and the second issues are interrelated, we will discuss and resolve
them jointly.
Petitioner
argues that there is no evidence showing that he inflicted injuries to the face
of the private complainant. In fact,
according to him, the private complainant had identified Reynaldo Jr. as the
person who inflicted wounds on his right cheek and not the petitioner. Moreover, the private complainant testified
that the petitioner tried to stab him in the face but he evaded it. In addition, the prosecution witness Mangunay did not actually see the person who inflicted
wounds on private complainant’s face.
Petitioner
also stressed the fact that he was then 66 years old and suffering from certain
ailment at the time of the incident. He
was not as strong and robust as the private complainant who was younger and
stronger than him, considering the fact that the private complainant was also a
movie stuntman. As such, he could not
have inflicted serious harm on the private complainant. Petitioner also maintained that since he was
holding the plastic material with a chisel-like edge in his right hand
vertically at the time he punched the private complainant in the face, the same
could not have slashed the latter’s face. He theorized that the private complainant had
sustained deep lacerations on his face when the latter fell and hit a rough
pavement during the incident.
We
reject these contentions.
It is well-settled
both in law and jurisprudence that the guilt of an accused must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt before he can be convicted of the crime charged.[24] Absolute guarantee of guilt is not demanded by
law to convict a person of a criminal charge but there must, at least, be moral
certainty on each element essential to constitute the offense and on the
responsibility of the offender. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt is meant to be that, all things given, the mind of the
judge can rest at ease concerning its verdict.[25]
Article
263, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, states that the crime of serious
physical injuries is committed when a person has wounded, beaten or assaulted
another and that the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness
or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than 30 days, viz:
Art. 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:
x x
x x
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correcional in its minimum period, if
the physical injuries inflicted shall have cause the illness or incapacity for
labor of the injured person for more than thirty days. x x
x.
Based
on this provision, the elements of the crime of serious physical injuries under
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code may be deduced as follows:
1.
That the offender has wounded, beaten, or
assaulted another; and
2.
That the physical injuries inflicted shall have
caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than
30 days.
Further,
there must be no intent to kill on the part of the offender in inflicting the
injury.
From
the testimonies of all the witnesses, the following have been established: (1)
Identity of the malefactor – petitioner; and (2) the existence and infliction
of the injuries on the face of the private complainant. Controverted
are: co-participation of Reynaldo Jr.; presence of intent to kill; and cause of
the commission of the crime (whether there was justification in the infliction
of the injuries).
Petitioner
admitted that he was carrying a plastic material with a chisel-like edge when
he chased the private complainant.[26] Petitioner also acknowledged that he was holding such object in his right hand when he,
using the same hand, punched the private complainant in the face.[27]
Moreover, the RTC found that when the
petitioner punched the private complainant in the face, it was “highly probable”
that the object, which had a dull-edge, also slashed the private complainant’s
face “upward from the latter’s lower lip up to his right cheekbone.”[28]
The private complainant himself and Mangunay alleged that the petitioner was carrying a bladed
weapon at the time of the chase.[29]
Dr. Rodriguez also declared that the injuries sustained by the
private complainant were caused by a dull-edged or blunt instrument similar to
what the petitioner was carrying at the time of the chase and assault.[30]
Dr. Rodriguez explained that the wounds
could not have been caused by a kitchen knife which was the weapon allegedly
used by Reynaldo Jr. in slashing the face of the private complainant because,
if such was the case, the wound would have been an incised wound, cleanly cut.[31]
He added that the injuries could not
have been due to the fact that the private complainant’s face hit a rough
pavement or a metal object when the latter fell to the ground during the incident
since, if this was so, then the private complainant would have sustained more
abrasions than lacerations.[32]
The medical certificate[33]
of the private complainant as signed and testified to by Dr. Rodriguez shows
that the former had sustained multiple lacerations on the face and only one
abrasion on the forehead.[34]
In inflicting the wound on the private complainant on the right
cheek, it is apparent, however, that the petitioner had no intent to kill the
private complainant. He could have
easily killed the private complainant during the incident as the latter was
already intoxicated and lying on the ground. Instead, upon inflicting injuries
on the face of the private complainant, the petitioner walked away from the
private complainant and proceeded home. The nature and location of the wounds
further belie any intent to kill. The
medical certificate signed and issued by Dr. Rodriguez to the private
complainant states that the facial injuries suffered by the latter would be
healed after 30 days or more.[35]
As to the participation of Reynaldo Jr., we quote with approval
the findings of the RTC, to wit:
Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. testified that he met his father while the
latter was already on his way home after his fight with Bantigue.
The testimony of said accused appears to be more credible as it was given in a
straightforward manner coupled with his demeanor on the witness stand which excuded an aura of a truthful testimony. This Court is more
inclined to believe that Bantigue is insisting on
implicating accused Pilares, Jr. because if he
succeeds in having him convicted, he will be able to do more harm and damage to
the Pilares family. Accused Reynaldo Pilares, Sr. is a 66 year-old man, accused Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. who is presently working as Field
Representative of Universal Sales Corporation is presumed to have a bright
future.
It is a settled
rule that if 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
sustain a conviction (People vs. Taruc, G.R. No.
74655, January 20, 1988, cited in People vs. Torre,
184 SCRA 525; People vs. Parayno, 24 SCRA 3 cited in
People vs Libag, 184 SCRA
707). The fact that the defense interposed by Reynaldo Pilares,
Jr. is weak is inconsequential, as the prosecution must rely on the strength of
its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense (People vs.
Finally, it appears that petitioner was not justified in inflicting
wounds on the face of the private complainant. During the confrontation, private complainant
was unarmed, intoxicated and lying on the ground. Furthermore, there was no convincing evidence
to show that the private complainant repeatedly threw stones at the petitioner during
the chase.
Before concluding, we again lean to our jurisprudential moorings
that the factual finding of the trial court, its calibration of the evidence of
the parties and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded respect and
are generally conclusive.[37]
This is even more true if the findings
and conclusions of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[38]
In the case at bar, both the trial court
and the appellate court ruled that petitioner is guilty of the crime of serious
physical injuries. We find no compelling
or exceptional reasons to deviate from their findings since they are supported
by the evidence on records and by prevailing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
(On Leave) MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[2] Penned
by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria
with Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Elvi John Asuncion,
concurring; id. at 38-48.
[3] Penned
by Judge Aurora Santiago-Lagman; id. at 49-55.
[4] CA
rollo, pp.
19-20.
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] TSN,
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23] TSN,
[24] Section
2, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence; People v. Abujan, G.R. No. 140870,
[25] People v. Lumibao,
G.R. Nos. 144080-81,
[26] TSN,
[27] TSN,
[28] Rollo, p. 53.
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31]
[32]
[33] Records,
pp. 102, 159 and 160.
[34] TSN,
[35] Rollo, p. 54.
[36]
[37] People v. Torres, G.R. No. 134766,
[38] People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912,