JULIUS
AMANQUITON, G.R. No. 186080
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
BERSAMIN,
JJ.
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August
14, 2009
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was a purok
leader of Barangay Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. As a purok
leader and barangay tanod, he was responsible for the maintenance of
cleanliness, peace and order of the community.
At 10:45 p.m. on October 30, 2001, petitioner
heard an explosion. He, together with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador Amante[1] and a
certain Cabisudo, proceeded to Sambong Street where the explosion took place.
Thereafter, they saw complainant Leoselie John Bañaga being chased by a certain
Gil Gepulane. Upon learning that Bañaga was the one who threw the pillbox[2] that
caused the explosion, petitioner and his companions also went after him.
On reaching Bañaga’s house,
petitioner, Cabisudo and Amante knocked on the door. When no one answered, they
decided to hide some distance away. After five minutes, Bañaga came out of the
house. At this juncture, petitioner and his companions immediately apprehended him.
Bañaga's aunt, Marilyn Alimpuyo, followed them to the barangay hall.
Bañaga was later brought to the police
station. On the way to the police station, Gepulane suddenly appeared from
nowhere and boxed Bañaga in the face. This caused petitioner to order
Gepulane’s apprehension along with Bañaga. An incident report was made.[3]
During the investigation, petitioner learned
Bañaga had been previously mauled by a group made up of a certain Raul, Boyet
and Cris but failed to identify two others. The mauling was the result of gang trouble in a
certain residental compound in Taguig City. Bañaga’s mauling was recorded in a
barangay blotter which read:
10-30-201
Time: 10-15 p.m.
RECORD purposes
Dumating dito sa
Barangay Head Quarters si Dossen[4] Bañaga is
Alimpuyo 16 years old student nakatira sa 10 B Kalachuchi St. M.B.T. M.M.
Upang ireklamo
yong sumapak sa akin sina Raul[,] Boyet [at] Cris at yong dalawang sumapak ay
hindi ko kilala. Nang yari ito kaninang 10:p.m. araw ng [M]artes taong
kasalukuyan at yong labi ko pumutok at yong kabilang mata ko ay namaga sa bandang
kanan. Ang iyong kaliwang mukha at pati yong likod ko ay may tama sa sapak.
Patunay dito ang aking
lagda.
Dossen
Banaga (sgd.)
Thereafter,
an Information for violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI, RA[5] 7160[6] in
relation to Section 5 (j) of R.A. 8369 was filed against petitioner, Amante and
Gepulane. The Information read:
The undersigned 2nd
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses Julius Amanquiton, Dominador Amante and
Gil Gepulane of the crime of Violations of Section 10 (a) Article VI, Republic
Act No. 7610 in relation to Section 5 (j) of R.A. No. 8369 committed as
follows:
That on the 30th day of
October, 2001, in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused in
conspiracy with one another, armed with nightstick, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal
violence, a form of physical abuse, upon the person of Leoselie John A. [Bañaga],
seventeen (17) years old, a minor, by then and there manhandling him and
hitting him with their nightsticks, thus, constituting other acts of child
abuse, which is inimical or prejudicial to child’s development, in violation of
the above-mentioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On arraignment, petitioner and Amante
both pleaded not guilty. Gepulane remains at-large.
During the trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: Dr. Paulito Cruz, medico-legal officer of
the Taguig-Pateros District Hospital who attended to Bañaga on October 30,
2001, Bañaga himself, Alimpuyo and Rachelle Bañaga (complainant’s mother).
The defense presented the testimonies
of petitioner, Amante and Briccio Cuyos, then deputy chief barangay tanod
of the same barangay. Cuyos testified that the blotter notation entered by
Gepulane and Bañaga was signed in his presence and that they read the contents
thereof before affixing their signatures.
On May 10, 2005, the RTC found
petitioner and Amante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.[7] The
dispositive portion of the RTC decision read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
this Court finds the accused JULIUS AMANQUITON and DOMINADOR AMANTE “GUILTY”
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article VI Sec. 10 (a) of Republic Act
7610 in relation to Section 3 (j) of Republic Act 8369, hereby sentences
accused JULIUS AMANQUITON and DOMINADOR AMANTE a straight penalty of thirty
(30) days of Arresto Menor.
Both accused Julius Amanquiton and
Dominador Amante are hereby directed to pay Leoselie John A. Banaga the
following:
1. Actual damages
in the amount of P5,000.00;
2. Moral Damages in
the amount of P 30,000.00; and
3. Exemplary
damages in the amount of P 20,000.00.
The case against
the accused Gil Gepulane is hereby sent to the ARCHIVES to be revived upon the
arrest of the accused. Let [a] warrant of arrest be issued against him.
SO ORDERED.
Amanquiton’s
motion for reconsideration was denied.[8]
Petitioner
filed a notice of appeal which was given due course. On August 28, 2008, the CA
rendered a decision[9]
which affirmed the conviction but increased the penalty. The dispositive
portion of the assailed CA decision read:
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. The accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional
maximum up to eight (8) years of prision
mayor minimum as maximum. In addition to the damages already awarded, a
fine of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) is hereby solidarily imposed the
proceeds of which shall be administered as a cash fund by the DSWD.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied.[10]
Hence, this petition. Petitioner
principally argues that the facts of the case as established did not constitute
a violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7160 and definitely did not
prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
The
Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.[11] An
accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt.[12] It is
the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable
conclusion, with moral certainty.[13]
The necessity for proof beyond
reasonable doubt was discussed in People v. Berroya:[14]
[Proof beyond
reasonable doubt] lies in the fact that in a criminal prosecution, the State is
arrayed against the subject; it enters the contest with a prior inculpatory
finding in its hands; with unlimited means of command; with counsel usually of
authority and capacity, who are regarded as public officers, as therefore as
speaking semi-judicially, and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in
striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and distracting
struggle for liberty if not for life. These inequalities of position, the law
strives to meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction where there is
reasonable doubt of guilt. However, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only
moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
The RTC and CA hinged their finding of
petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt (of the crime of child abuse) solely
on the supposed positive identification by the complainant and his witness (Alimpuyo)
of petitioner and his co-accused as the perpetrators of the crime.
We note Bañaga’s statement that, when
he was apprehended by petitioner and Amante, there were many people around.[15] Yet,
the prosecution presented only Bañaga and his aunt, Alimpuyo, as witnesses to
the mauling incident itself. Where were the other people who could have
testified, in an unbiased manner, on the alleged mauling of Bañaga by
petitioner and Amante, as supposedly witnessed by Alimpuyo?[16] The
testimonies of the two other prosecution witnesses, Dr. Paulito Cruz and
Rachelle Bañaga, did not fortify Bañaga’s claim that petitioner mauled him, for
the following reasons: Dr. Cruz merely attended to Bañaga’s injuries, while
Rachelle testified that she saw Bañaga only after the injuries have been
inflicted on him.
We note furthermore that, Bañaga
failed to controvert the validity of the barangay blotter he signed regarding
the mauling incident which happened prior to his apprehension by petitioner. Neither
did he ever deny the allegation that he figured in a prior battery by gang
members.
All this raises serious doubt on
whether Bañaga’s injuries were really inflicted by petitioner, et al.,
to the exclusion of other people. In fact, petitioner testified clearly that
Gepulane, who had been harboring a grudge against Bañaga, came out of nowhere
and punched Bañaga while the latter was being brought to the police station.
Gepulane, not petitioner, could very well have caused Bañaga's injuries.
Alimpuyo
admitted that she did not see who actually caused the bloodied condition of Bañaga’s
face because she had to first put down the baby she was then carrying when the melee
started.[17]
More importantly, Alimpuyo stated that she was told by Bañaga that, while he was
allegedly being held by the neck by petitioner, others were hitting him.
Alimpuyo was obviously testifying not on what she personally saw but on what
Bañaga told her.
While we ordinarily do not interfere
with the findings of the lower courts on the trustworthiness of witnesses, when
there appear in the records facts and circumstances of real weight which might
have been overlooked or misapprehended, this Court cannot shirk from its duty
to sift fact from fiction.
We apply the pro reo principle
and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is
in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt
should be resolved in favor of the accused.[18] If inculpatory
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one 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 will not justify a
conviction.[19]
Time and again, we have held that:
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that “The State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.” This piece of legislation supplies the inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child abuse and exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their commission, and a means by which child traffickers could easily be prosecuted and penalized. Also, the definition of child abuse is expanded to encompass not only those specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but includes also “other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.”[20]
However, this noble statute should
not be used as a sharp sword, ready to be brandished against an accused even if
there is a patent lack of proof to convict him of the crime. The right of an
accused to liberty is as important as a minor’s right not to be subjected to
any form of abuse. Both are enshrined in the Constitution. One need not be
sacrificed for the other.
There
is no dearth of law, rules and regulations protecting a child from any and all
forms of abuse. While unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of children
abound amidst social ills, care has to be likewise taken that wayward youths
should not be cuddled by a misapplication of the law. Society, through its
laws, should correct the deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the
cudgels for them. Lest we regress to a culture of juvenile delinquency and errant
behavior, laws for the protection of children against abuse should be applied
only and strictly to actual abusers.
The
objective of this seemingly catch-all provision on abuses against children will
be best achieved if parameters are set in the law itself, if only to prevent
baseless accusations against innocent individuals. Perhaps the time has come
for Congress to review this matter and institute the safeguards necessary for the
attainment of its laudable ends.
We
reiterate our ruling in People v. Mamalias:[21]
We emphasize that the great goal of our criminal law and procedure is not to send people to the gaol but to do justice. The prosecution’s job is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. Thus, when the evidence of the prosecution is not enough to sustain a conviction, it must be rejected and the accused absolved and released at once.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is
hereby GRANTED. The August 28, 2008 decision and January 15, 2009
resolution of Court of Appeals are reversed
and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Julius Amanquiton is hereby ACQUITTED
of violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7160.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
Associate
Justice
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
[1] Co-accused of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 122996. Amante opted to apply for probation. Rollo, p. 34.
[2] An improvised explosive device.
[3] “10-30-201
Time: 10-06 p.m.
RECORD purposes
Nagsadya si Gel Pulane Y Castello 25 yrs. Old Binata may trabaho Tubong Bacolod nakatira sa no.03 Sambong St., M.B.T. Mla.
Upang ireklamo si Neosen (sic) Banaga 14 yrs old Dahil siya ang nakita-naming na naghagis ng pillbox sa harap ng tricycle na nakaparada sa kahabaan ng sambong.
Patunay dito ang kanyang lagda.”
Gel pulanes (sgd).” Rollo, p. 8.
[4] Dossen Bañaga is the same person as Leoselie John A. Bañaga.
[5] Republic Act.
[6] An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and for Other Purposes.
[7] Rollo, pp. 52-67.
[8] Resolution dated June 29, 2006. Id., pp. 76-77.
[9] Id., pp. 34-50.
[10] Resolution dated January 15, 2009. Id., p. 51.
[11] CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14 (2).
[12] RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 2.
[13] People v. Fernandez, 434 Phil. 435, 445 (2002).
[14] 347 Phil. 410, 423 (1997).
[15] Rollo, p. 90.
[16] Id.
[17] Id., p. 16.
[18] People v. Abarquez, G.R. No. 150762, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 225, 239.
[19] People v. Lagmay, 365 Phil. 606, 633 (1999).
[20] Gonzalo Araneta v. People, G.R. No. 174205, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 323, 332.
[21] People v. Mamalias, 385 Phil. 499, 513-514 (2000).