You are on page 1of 2

ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary

|chanrobles.com

Search

PhilippineSupremeCourtResolutions>Year2011>November2011Resolutions>[G.R.No.197199:
November16,2011]RAFAELREYESv.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES:

Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

SECONDDIVISION
[G.R.No.197199:November16,2011]
RAFAELREYESv.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 NOVEMBER 2011
whichreadsasfollows:
c r a la w

G.R. No. 197199 (Rafael Reyes v. People of the Philippines) We resolve the Petition for
Review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by accused Rafael Reyes from the 23 August 2010
DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.C.R.No.00018MIN.
TheRTCRuling
InitsDecision[1]promulgated15April2004,theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofIsulan,SultanKudarat,

DebtKollectCompany,Inc.

foundtheaccusedRafaelReyesguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofviolationofRepublicAct(R.A.)No.
7610[2] or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
andsentencedhimtosufferthestraightpenaltyof6yearsand1dayofprisionmayorand to pay P
4,157.00inactualdamages,P10,000asattorney'sfees,andcostsofthesuit.TheRTCwasconvinced
by the testimony of the 13yearold victim himself, AAA,[3] that on the night of 16 June 2001, the
accused injured him by slapping his face several times and striking his head with a bicycle rim.
Accused allegedly used rattan rope to tie the child to a copra weighing scale and then held him at
knifepoint. The RTC gave weight to accused petitioners admission that he did lay hands on AAA,
becausethelatterhadstolenseveralitemsfromhisstore,includingaccused'sownwatch.[4]
TheCARuling

The CA [5] rejected petitioner's claim that it was AAA's mother who had caused the child's injuries it
instead found AAAs testimony truthful, frank, and consistent. The Medical Certificate issued by Dr.
Ronald A. Jaramillo and the case study report of the Municipal Social Welfare Officer, as the latter
explained in her testimony, confirm that AAA was maltreated and traumatized by the accused.[6]
However, the CA modified the straight penalty of prision mayor and instead imposed 4 years, 9
months,and11daysofprisioncorreccionalasminimum,to6years,8months,and1dayofprision
mayor,asmaximum.
OurRuling
WedenythePetition.

ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty

Accused petitioner asks for a review, claiming that the appellate court overlooked several crucial
detailswhichwouldhaveshownloopholesinthecasefortheprosecution.Heclaimsthatitwasonly
AAA who testified regarding the incident, and such selfserving assertion cannot be relied upon. He
alsoquestionstheprobativevalueoftheMedicalCertificateofDr.Jaramillo,arguingthatwithoutthe
latter's own testimony in court, the said certificate constitutes hearsay. Accused petitioner theorizes

Division

thatitwasthemotherofAAAwhobeathimupafterlearningofhistheft,andsubsequentlycoached
thechildtotestifyfalsely.[7]
WefindnosolidreasontodisturbthefindingsoftheCA.Reevaluationandcalibrationoftheevidence
necessarilyinvolveconsiderationoffactualissuesanexercisethatisnotappropriateforapetitionfor
reviewoncertiorariunderRule45.Generally,theCourtisnotdutyboundtoanalyzeandweighagain
the evidence introduced in, and considered by, the tribunals below. When supported by substantial
evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this
Court, unless they fall under any of the following recognized exceptions.[8] No such exceptions are
applicablehere.
Even if we yield to petitioners misguided assumption, the factual points he raises are still not
meritorious.TheMedicalCertificatewasproperlyadmittedupontheRTC'sorderdated18July2002,
towhichthedefenseneverinterposedanyobjection.[9]ThetrialcourtalsoadjudgedAAA'stestimony
to be indicative of a dependent and trustworthy recollection and his narration consistently
straightforward.[10] The ageold rule is that, when supported by the evidence on record, the task of
assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial
court, which forms firsthand impressions of them. Trial courts have the advantage of observing the
demeanor of witnesses in the exact moments that they testify.[11] Moreover, as previously held by
theSupremeCourt,thetestimoniesofchildrenofsoundmindarelikelytobemoretruthfulthanthose
of older persons, so that once it is established that they have fully understood the character and
natureofanoath,theirtestimoniesshouldbegivenfullcredence.[12]
ItismisleadingforpetitionertoclaimthattheRT'CbaseditsfindingsonAAA'stestimonyalone.Five
witnesses appeared in court for the prosecution: Barangay Chairperson Guillermo Togonon, Police
OfficerJenniferPrudente,SocialWelfareOfficerDaisyAduaya,themotherofAAA,andAAAhimself.
[13]TheRTCnotonlybaseditsrulingonthetotalityoftheprosecutionevidenceitalsohighlighted
theadmissiontwicemadebytheaccusedthathedidhitAAA:first,beforethebarangay chairperson,
andsecond,beforethetrialcourtjudge.[14]

c r a la w

Petitionerthenarguesthathisacthasnotbeenproventobeprejudicialtothechild'sdevelopment.He
reiterates that the Medical Certificate never established that his act prejudiced or even affected the
developmentofthechild.

Section3(b)ofR.A.7610defineschildabuseasthemaltreatmentofachild,whetherhabitualornot,
whichiscommittedthroughanyofthefollowing:

a) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment

November2011

b)Anyactbydeedsorwordswhichdebases,degradesordemeanstheintrinsicworth
anddignityofachildasahumanbeing:

[G.R. No. 167449 : November 14, 2011] BRISTOL


MYERSSQUIBB[PHILS.]v.NIXONA.BABAN

c) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter:
or

[G.R.No.190648:November14,2011]HYATTTAXI
SERVICES, INC./MR. CESAR LEE/MR. CONSTANCIO
RAMOS,JR.V.WILFREDOCERILLO

d)Failuretoimmediatelygivemedicaltreatmenttoaninjuredchildresultinginserious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.
(emphasissupplied)

[G.R. No. 194974 : November 14, 2011] DAISY


TOLEDO Y CAUPAYAN, FRED BULAWIN Y EROY AND
EVELYNTIZONYAGUSTINES,PETITIONERSVERSUS
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,RESPONDENT.

AswehaveheldinAranetav.People:[15]
The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelly and child
exploitationhaveresultedintheprejudiceofthechildbecauseanactprejudicialtothe
developmentofthechildisdifferentfromtheformeracts.xxx

[G.R.No.196974:November14,2011]PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINESv.JOMARMALLILLINYBUNCAG
[G.R. No. 195966 : November 14, 2011] ATTY.
ROSELLER"JACK"MAALATv.HONORABLECOURTOR
APPEALS [18TH DIVISION], CEBU CITY, LORETO
VALENZUELA,ANDJESSIECERVANTES,ETAL.

(T)he use of "or" in Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that
there are four punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse second, child
cruelty third, child exploitation and fourth, being responsible for conditions
prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth penalized act cannot be
interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the three other acts,
because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision does not warrant
suchconstrual.

[G.R. No. 194840 : November 14, 2011] MARCELO


PACHECOv.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES
[G.R. No. 198558 : November 14, 2011] ARIEL
LANTAJO
Y
CRISTOBAL
AND
GUILLERMO
ALOJAMIENTO Y GUAPIN v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
[G.R.No.197248:November14,2011]PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINESv.ROMULODUTERTE
[G.R.No.197924:November14,2011]BENITOYAO
CHUAANDWILSONGOv.LEONARDOL.VILLALON,ET
AL.
[G.R.No.196227:November14,2011]PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINESv.SHANEDATUUTOH
[G.R. No. 181027 : November 15, 2011] NQSR
MANAGEMENTANDDEVELOPMENTCORPORATIONVS.
EXECUTIVESECRETARYEDUARDOERMITA,ETAL.
[G.R. No. 191970 : November 15, 2011] ROMMEL
APOLINARIO JALOSJOS VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONSANDDANERASMO,JR.
[G.R. No. 193462 : November 15, 2011] DENNIS B.
FUNA VS. MANILA ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL OFFICE
ANDCOMMISSIONONAUDIT

Thus,prejudicetothechild'sdevelopmentisnotanelementofthecrimeofchildabuseandneednet
beprovedseparatelyfromthefactofactualphysicalabuseinordertowarrantconviction.Itis,asthe
Courthaslongresolved,merelyoneofthemodespunishableunderthecrimegenerallydesignatedas
child abuse. Lastly, petitioner cannot escape the correct penalty as imposed by the Court of Appeals
simply by arguing that the acts alleged in the Information constitute the crime of serious physical
injuries,andnotchildabuseunderR.A.7610.Clearly,itisR.A.7610whichshouldapply,asitisthe
specific special law punishing child abuse, and not the Revised Penal Code. It is undisputed that the
victim, AAA, is a child at the time of the commission of the crime, being only 13 years old, and it is
clearthatR.A.7610doesnotrequirethephysicalmaltreatmenttobehabitual.TheinterplayofR.A.
7610 with the Revised Penal Code is allowed only if R.A. 7610 itself so allows, as Article 10 of the
RevisedPenalCodestates:
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws,
unlessthelattershouldspeciallyprovidethecontrary.
There being no reversible error attributable to the appellate court, its findings are affirmed, and the
presentPetitionisdenied.
c r a la w

WHEREFORE,the23August2010DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.C.R.No.00018MINis
herebyAFFIRMED.
Verytrulyyours,

[G.R. No. 196933 : November 15, 2011] NOLI JOEL


IGNAO BERMEO VS. LUZ IGNAO PADAYAO AND
COMMISSIONONELECTIONS[COMELEC]

MA.LUISAL.LAUREA
DivisionClerkofCourt
By:

[G.R. No. 197930 : November 15, 2011] EFRAIM C.


GENUINO,ETAL.VS.HON.LEILAM.DELIMA,INHER
CAPACITYASSECRETARYOFJUSTICE,ETAL.
[G.R. No. 197878 : November 15, 2011] GEMMA C.
DELA CRUZ, ET AL. VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
[MERALCO],ETAL.
[G.R. No. 197778 : November 15, 2011] NASSER
DIKILAGUINDABVS.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,ET
AL.
[G.R. No. 197419 : November 15, 2011] JESUS

(Sgd.)TERESITAAQUINOTUAZON
DeputyDivisionClerkofCourt
Endnotes:
[1]PennedbyJudgeGermanM.MalcampoinCriminalCaseNo.2845,rollo,pp.5680.
[2]Enacted17June1992,inparticularSec.10(a),ArticleVI.
[3]Theidentifyorthevictimiswithheld,pursuanttoR.A.7610,R.A.9262,andA.M.No.