[ GR. No.

234217, November 14, 2018 ]

JOHNNY GARCIA YAP @ "CHARLIE" A.K.A. JOHNNY YAP Y GARCIA@
"CHARLIE," PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
Based on the foregoing circumstances, while it is clear that petitioner really intended to harm Ang,
it cannot be concluded nor inferred beyond doubt that in causing the injuries of Ang, petitioner had
intended to kill him. When such intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the crime
is not attempted murder but physical injuries only.

Moreover, treachery is not presumed but must be proved as conclusively as the crime itself.
[46]
 Circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter
[47]
how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence.  Mere
probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish each element necessary to convict.

Under Article 27 of the RPC, the penalty of arresto menor  spans from one (1) day to thirty (30)
days. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply since the said law excludes from its
coverage cases where the penalty imposed does not exceed one (1) year. In the absence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the imposable penalty shall be arresto menor  in its medium
period, which ranges from eleven (11) days to twenty (20) days. Consequently, the Court imposes
upon petitioner a straight sentence of fifteen (15) days of arresto menor.

Under paragraph (1), Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in a criminal
[51]
offense resulting in physical injuries.  Moral damages compensate for the mental anguish,
serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim and his family as being a proximate result
[52]
of the wrongful act.  An award requires no proof of pecuniary loss. Pursuant to previous
jurisprudence, an award of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) moral damages is appropriate for
[53]
less serious, as well as slight physical injuries.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of

the Court of Appeals, dated March 8, 2017, in CA-G.R. CR No. 38903, which affirmed the August
7, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27 in Criminal Case No. 13-297324,
finding herein petitioner guilty of the crime of attempted murder, is hereby MODIFIED and instead
finds petitioner GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight physical injuries, as defined
and penalized under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
fifteen (15) days of arresto menor.  Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY the victim, George Hao Ang,
moral damages in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

----

In the recent case of..

The records of the case

filed a complaint against the petitioner before the barangay.

eyble's testimony was corroborated by Maldecir who categorically stated

that Leyble was shot by petitioner from behind, and was thereafter
brought to the Don Benito Lopez Memorial Hospital (now known as the
WVSUMC) for treatment.

G. R. No. 195224, June 15, 2016 - VIRGINIA JABALDE Y JAMANDRON,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.:

When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the offended parly for

labor or of the required medical attendance; or when there is no proof as
to the period of the offended party's incapacity for labor or of the required
medical attendance, the offense is only slight physical injuries.

her acts of laying hands against Lin showed the essential element of
intent which is a prerequisite in all crimes punishable under the RPC.

In order to be found guilty of the felonious acts under Articles 262 to 266
of the [RPC], the employment of physical injuries must be coupled
with dolus malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of malicious
intent is fundamental, since injury arises from the mental state of the
wrongdoer — iniuria ex affectu facientis consistat. If there is no criminal
intent, the accused cannot be found guilty of an intentional felony. Thus,
in case of physical injuries under the [RPC], there must be a
specific animus iniuriandi or malicious intention to do wrong against the
physical integrity or well-being of a person, so as to incapacitate and
deprive the victim of certain bodily functions. Without proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt act of
inflicting physical injuries per se merely satisfies the elements of freedom
and intelligence in an intentional felony. The commission of the act does
not, in itself, make a man guilty unless his intentions are.
In the case at bar, the positive testimonies of the minor victim Lin that
Jabalde slapped him on his neck and choked him, 49 and that of Ray Ann
that she saw Jabalde struck Lin on his neck, squeezed it and then
shouted, "Better that you are able to free yourself because if not I should
have killed you,"50 deserve more credit than Jabalde's own statement that
she merely held Lin still because the latter kept on jumping. 51 The laying
of the hands and the utterance of words threatening the life of Lin
established the fact that Jabalde, indeed, intended to cause or inflict
physical injuries on, much less kill, Lin.

The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges
from one (1) day to thirty (30) days of imprisonment. 52 In imposing the
correct penalty, however, the Court has to consider the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13(6). of the
RPC,53 because Jabalde lost his reason and self-control, thereby
diminishing the exercise of his will power.54 There is passional obfuscation
when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus
so powerful as to overcome reason.55 For passion and obfuscation to be
considered a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that: (1) an
unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed
by the intended victim; (2) the crime was committed within a reasonable
length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the
obfuscation in the accused's mind; and (3) the passion and obfuscation
arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or
revenge.56 With her having acted under the belief that Lin had killed her
daughter, Jabalde is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation.

Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period (i.e. one [1] day to ten
[10] days) when only mitigating circumstance is present in the
case.57 Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law being
inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding one year, 58 Jabalde
shall suffer a penalty of one (1) day to ten (10) days of arresto menor.

G.R. No. 192150               October 1, 2014

FEDERICO SABAY, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

As the RTC and the CA pointed out, the petitioner failed to substantiate his claimed
self-defense because he did not even present any medical certificate as supporting
evidence, notwithstanding his claim that he consulted a doctor. Nor did he
everpresent the doctor he allegedly consulted. His contention, too, that he was
attacked by Godofredo and was shot with a .38 caliber gun by Jessie was refuted by
the prosecution eyewitnesses – Rodolfo and Dina – who both testified that it was the
petitioner who had attacked Godofredo.
---------------------
As regards civil liability, no finding could be made for lack of
factual bases that complainant incurred actual expenses;
neither was there any testimony that she suffered moral
damages.

------------------------

After careful evaluation of the evidence presented, this court

finds the prosecution to have sufficiently proved beyond
reasonable doubt that all the accused has committed the crime
of slight physical injuries.

The evidence consisting of the express categorical declarations

(uncontroverted narration) of the victim Magtalas that all the
accused attacked and inflicted the injuries to him as supported
by the Medico-Legal Report from Ospital ng Muntinlupa, without
a doubt, established the culpability of the accused.

Well settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness, if

truthful and credible is sufficient to convict an accused. 1

The testimony of Magtalas as the lone witness for the

prosecution suffices to establish the culpability of all the
accused for the crime charged. The court is convinced with the
narration of the accused when he positively identified all the
accused in his testimony and narrated the mauling incident in a
straightforward manner. He testified as follows:

Noting the..

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
CARLITO CLARO y MAHINAY
In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only
moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.

In the face of all the foregoing, we have reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused
for rape. Reasonable doubt –
1
x x x is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and
depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that
state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all
the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition that they cannot
say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the
charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the presumptions of law
independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to
be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt
remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is
not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the
doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the
contrary; but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable
and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding
and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act
conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof beyond reasonable doubt;
because if the law, which mostly depends upon considerations of a moral
nature, should go further than this, and require absolute certainty, it would
exclude circumstantial evidence altogether.

Shaw, C. J., in Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 320, 52 Am. Dec. 711;
cited in Schmidt v.Ins. Co., 1 Gray (Mass.) 534; Bethell v. Moore, 19 N. C.
311; State v. Goldsborough, Houst. Cr. Rep. (Del.)316 (Bold underscoring is
supplied for emphasis).

Without the proof of his guilt being beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused herein was not overcome. His
acquittal should follow, for, as we have emphatically

reminded in Patula v. People:   G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 135.
19

x x x in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the
Prosecution's duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the
information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime
necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must further prove the
participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all
these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not
anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The
burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has
guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of
proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not
overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the
weakness of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the
proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of
proof in establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying
the accused as the malefactor responsible for it. 20

March 8, 2017

G.R. No. 205745

CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER SALISI, and BREGIDO MALA CAT,

JR., Petitioners
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the immense
responsibility of establishing moral certainty. The prosecution's case must rise on its
own merits, not merely on relative strength as against that of the defense. Should the
prosecution fail to discharge its burden, acquittal must follow as a matter of course.
People v. Vasquez,  this Court refused to undiscemingly lend credence to the
69

incriminating assertions of prosecution witnesses as to an alleged mauling, and

stated that "[t]his Court cannot be persuaded by the prosecution's claim of perpetrati
on of physical violence in the absence of any marked physical injuries on the various
parts of the victim's face and body."People v. Vasquez, 345 Phil. 380, 395 (1997)
[Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division], citing People v. Uycoque, 316 Phil. 930, 942
(1995) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the accused must
rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The
burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the
accused to prove his innocence.Macayan, Jr. y Malana v. People, G.R. No. 175842,
March 18, 2015

The details pointed out by the defense reveal how the prosecution failed to establish
the moral certainty and conscientious satisfaction that attends proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. While not per se demonstrating the veracity and blamelessness of
the defense's entire version of events, they nevertheless disclose how the
prosecution's case is unable to stand on its own merits.

They cast doubt on whether the complainant and his companion were actually
stopped in their tracks to be assaulted, and support the possibility that they may
have instead deliberately intended to bring themselves to Vicente's house to provoke
or challenge one (1) of the petitioners.