Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
Robert taguinod, Petitioner, -versus- people of the Respondent. |
G.R. No. 185833 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA,
ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: October 12, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
For this Court's consideration is the petition for review[1] dated
February 5, 2009 of petitioner Robert Taguinod seeking to reverse the Decision[2] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 8, 2008 and its Resolution[3] dated
December 19, 2008 affirming the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City (RTC)[4] and the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City (MeTC)[5] dated
September 6, 2007 and November 8, 2006, respectively.
The following are the antecedent facts:
This case started with a single incident on
As a result of the collision, the CRV sustained damage at
the back bumper spare tires and the front bumper, the repair of which amounted
to P57,464.66. The
insurance company shouldered the said amount, but the private complainant paid P18,191.66 as his
participation. On the other hand, the
Vitara sustained damage on the right
side of its bumper.
Thereafter, an Information[6] was
filed in the MeTC of Makati City against petitioner for the crime of Malicious
Mischief as defined in and penalized under Article 327[7] of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC). The
Information reads as follows:
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.
Petitioner pleaded Not Guilty during the arraignment on
Afterwards, the MeTC, in its Decision
dated
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]
The case was appealed to the RTC of
Makati City, which rendered its Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.[9]
Undaunted,
petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA, praying for the reversal of
the decision of the RTC. The CA partly
granted the petition in its Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing premises, the petition for review filed in this case
is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed
decision dated
1. The petitioner is penalized to suffer the penalty of 30 days imprisonment;
2. The award of moral damages is reduced to P20,000.00;
and
3. The award of attorney's fee is reduced to P10,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari dated
The
grounds relied upon are the following:
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]
This Court finds the petition partly meritorious.
The first argument of the petitioner centers on the issue of
credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented. Petitioner insists that between the witness
presented by the prosecution and the witnesses presented by the defense, the
latter should have been appreciated, because the lone testimony of the witness
for the prosecution was
self-serving. He also puts into
query the admissibility and authenticity of some of the pieces of evidence presented
by the prosecution.
Obviously, the first issue raised by petitioner is purely
factual in nature. It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have
affected the result of the case.[16] This
doctrine is premised on the undisputed fact that, since the trial court had the
best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses
while on the stand, it was in a position to discern whether or not they were
telling the truth.[17] Moreover,
the testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety
and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.[18]
It is apparent in this
present case that both the RTC and the CA accorded respect to the findings of
the MeTC; hence, this Court finds no reason to oppose the other two courts in
the absence of any clear and valid circumstance that would merit a review of
the MeTC's assessment as to the credibility of the witnesses and their
testimonies. Petitioner harps on his
contention that the MeTC was wrong in not finding the testimony of his own
witness, Mary Susan Lim Taguinod, to be credible enough. However, this Court finds the inconsistencies
of said petitioner's witness to be more than minor or trivial; thus, it does
not, in any way, cast reasonable doubt.
As correctly pointed out by the MeTC:
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
Thus, the Court finds that the prosecution has proven its case against the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[19]
What really governs this particular case is that the
prosecution was able to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt. The elements of the crime of
malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:
(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]
In finding that all the
above elements are present, the MeTC rightly ruled that:
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
The CA also accurately observed that
the elements of the crime of malicious mischief are not wanting in this case,
thus:
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.
In sum, this Court finds that the evidence on record shows that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malicious mischief. This adjudication is but an affirmation of the finding of guilt of the petitioner by both the lower courts, the MeTC and the RTC.[22]
Petitioner likewise raises
the issue that the CA was wrong in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees
to the private complainant claiming that during the trial, the latter's entitlement
to the said monetary reliefs was not substantiated. This Court finds petitioner's claim, with
regard to the award of moral damages, unmeritorious.
In Manuel v. People,[23] this
Court tackled in substance the concept of the award of moral damages, thus:
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]
It is true that the private complainant is entitled to the
award of moral damages under Article 2220[25] of the
New Civil Code because the injury contemplated by the law which merits the said
award was clearly established. Private complainant
testified that he felt bad[26] and
lost sleep.[27] The said testimony is substantial to prove
the moral injury suffered by the private complainant for it is only him who can
personally approximate the emotional suffering he experienced. For the court to arrive upon a judicious
approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and
substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it.[28] The
same also applies with private complainant's claim that his wife felt dizzy
after the incident and had to be taken to the hospital.[29]
However, anent the award
of attorney's fees, the same was not established. In German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,[30] this
Court held that there must always be a factual basis for the award of attorneys fees. This present case does not contain any valid
and factual reason for such award.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review dated
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ESTELA
M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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 Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
Third
Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 13-152.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; id. at 35-44.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[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]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Dated
[15]
[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,
[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,
[27]
[28]
[29] TSN,
[30] 403 Phil. 572, 597 (2001). Also see Concept Placement Resources, Inc. v. Funk, G.R. No. 137680, February 6, 2004, 422 SCRA 317.