GEORGE BONGALON vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
PROSECUTION
 on 2002, Jayson(12yrs) and Roldan, his older brother, both minors, joined the evening
procession for the Santo Niño at Legazpi City
 when it passed in front of the petitioner’s house, Bongalan’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, a
minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him "sissy"
 petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like "strangers" and
"animals"
 petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face
 petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando, their father, to a fight,
but Rolando did not come out of the house
 Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident.
Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the Hospital; 
 the doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting that Jayson
suffered contusions in the left scapular area and left zygomatic area. - required 5-7 days of
medical attention

DEFENSE
 Petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson.
 He explained that he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and
Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at
them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair.
 He denied shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only
told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.
 Mary Ann Rose testified that her father did not hit or slap but only confronted Jayson, asking
why Jayson had called her daughters "Kimi" and why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary
Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and calling him a "sissy." She insisted that it
was instead Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the procession. She described
the petitioner as a loving and protective father.

Petitioner is charged with child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

RTC: found and declared the petitioner GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF CHILD
ABUSE as charged in Violation of RA7610 ordered to undergo imprisonment of 6years and
1day to 8years of prision mayor in its minimum period.
CA: affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for the crime of child abuse under Section 10(a) of
RA7610 but modified the penalty.
SC: set aside the decision of the CA and found petitioner Bongalon GUlLTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES under paragraph 1, Article 266, of the
RPC.
 Petitioner asserts that he was not guilty of the crime charged; and that even
assuming that he was guilty, his liability should be mitigated because he had
merely acted to protect her two minor daughters.

ISSUE:
a. WON petitioner is guilty of the crime charged.
b. WON the mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation is
present.
RULING:
a. NO. The SC held that petitioner’s acts did not constitute child abuse under Section
10(a) of RA7610. Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime
of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610. Only when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child
abuse.
In this case, the records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying
of hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of
Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass
Jayson.

HOWEVER, considering that Jayson’s physical injury required 5-7 days of medical attention,
the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the RPC.

b. Yes. The SC also considered the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation

under Article 13(6) of the RPC because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control,
hence, diminishing the exercise of his will power. With his having acted under the belief
that Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his two minor daughters, and that
Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair, the petitioner was entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion. Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period (1day-10
days) in the absence of any aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating
circumstance of passion.

HENCE, The SC set aside the decision of the CA; and found petitioner Bongalon GUlLTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.

1. There be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation;
2. The act that must produce passion and obfuscation must not be far removed from
the commission of the crime by the considerable length of time during which the
offender might have recovered his normal equanimity;
FELIX NIZURTADO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 

FACTS:

 Accused Felix V. Nizurtado was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo, Malabon,
Metro Manila from 1983 to 1988.

 In 1983, Nizurtado received a check worth P10,000 for Barangay Panghulo issued in his
name. It was specifically intended by way of a loan for livelihood projects from the Ministry of
Human Settlements. The check, however, could be encashed only upon submission to the
Secretariat of a resolution approved by the Barangay Council identifying the livelihood
project in which the loan would be invested. He entrusted the check to Romero, brgy
treasurer, for safekeeping.

 Nizurtado got back the check from Romero, saying that he would return it because the
Councilmen could not agree on any livelihood project. Nizurtado asked the Councilmen,
Secretary, and Romero to sign an unaccomplished resolution in mimeograph form stating
that the livelihood project was a barangay service center.

 Later, Nizurtado submitted the resolution to the Ministry of Human Settlements which
identified T-shirt manufacturing as the project. The application for loan was approved,
Nizurtado encashed the check and re-lent the cash proceeds to himself and some other
councilmen.

 On 1984, Nizurtado who was then on leave wrote Sandel, then acting Barangay Captain,
informing him that Romero and Gomez had not made any remittance for the account of their
P1,000 loans from the barangay livelihood fund of P10,000.00 and advising him to collect,
through the Secretary or Treasurer. Since Romero and Gomez had not borrowed any
amount from the said fund, they told Sandel to ask Nizurtado if he had any proof of their
alleged loans.

 However, they learned that the check for P10,000 was encashed by Nizurtado and that the
blank resolution which they had signed was filled-up to make it appear that a Council
meeting for T-shirt manufacturing was held but no such meeting occurred. Neither was
Nizurtado authorized by the Council to submit T-shirt Manufacturing as the livelihood project
of Panghulo. Romero and Gomez filed a case against Nizurtado.
Accused-appellant is charged of having committed the complex crime of malversation of
public funds through falsification of public document.

Sandiganbayan: found Nizurtado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the COMPLEX CRIME OF
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS COMMITTED THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF
PUBLIC DOCUMENT and, appreciating in his favor two mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender and restitution.
Indeterminate Sentence Law: imprisonment ranging from 4YEARS, 9MONTHS,
and 11DAYS of prision correccional as minimum to 8YEARS, 8MONTHS,
and 1 DAY of prision mayor as maximum; perpetual special disqualification;
and a fine of P10,000.
ISSUE: WON he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and restitution.

RULING: YES. The SC held that Voluntary surrender (Art. 13(7)) may be treated as a
modifying circumstance independent and apart from restitution of the questioned funds
by petitioner (Art. 13(10)). When BOTH are present they should have the effect of
mitigating the penalty as two independent circumstances.
The SC is also convinced that petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed – praeter intentionem- (Art. 13(3)), entitling him to three distinct
mitigating circumstances.
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in the
maximum period.
 The penalty prescribed for the offense of malversation of public funds, when the
amount involved exceeds 6,000Php but does not exceed 12,000Php, is prision
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
 The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of five thousand pesos is prescribed for the
crime of falsification

In this case, imposed penalty for the malversation, being more severe than that
imposed for the falsification, is then the applicable prescribed penalty to be imposed in
its maximum period. The actual attendance of two separate mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender and restitution entitles the accused to the penalty next lower in
degree. The one degree lower than prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal minimum
is prision mayor minimum to prision mayor medium.
The presence of the third mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem (lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed) would result in imposing a
period the court may deem applicable.  Considering, however, that the penalty has to be
imposed in the maximum period, the only effect of this additional mitigating circumstance
is to impose only the minimum portion of that maximum period.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting Nizurtado for malversation of

public funds through falsification of public document is AFFIRMED and the sentence is
MODIFIED, imposing on petitioner a reduced indeterminate sentence of from two years, four
months and one day to eight years, eight months and one day, perpetual special disqualification
and a fine of P2,000.
REYNALDO S. MARIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
PROSECUTION
 De Leon was driving his owner type jeep with his wife, and two-year-old son as they
just came from a baptismal party. His uncle was also driving his owner type jeep
along with them.
 Mariano was driving his Toyota red pick up with his wife and helper. Then Mariano
overtook De Leon’s pickup and almost bumped De Leon’s car. De Leon got mad,
overtook Mariano and blocked his way. De Leon alighted his car and approached
Mariano and they had an altercation. De Leon’s uncle tried to pacified them to which he
succeeded.
 Instead of going home, De Leon decided to go to his mother’s house to pick up some
items. He parked his car in front of his mother’s house and alighted the car. However, he
was bumped by a moving vehicle and thrown 4 meters away and lost consciousness.
 The vehicle was identified as the same pickup being driven by Mariano.
 De Leon was brought to the hospital in Bustos, Bulacan and was later on transferred in
St. Luke’s Medical Center in QC.
DEFENSE
 Reynaldo and his wife, Rebecca, tried to show that the jeep of Ferdinand stopped on the
road in front of the house of the latter’s mother about 5-6 meters away from their pick-up.
Reynaldo stopped the pick-up as he saw an oncoming vehicle, which he allowed to
pass. Thereafter, Reynaldo made a signal and overtook the jeep of Ferdinand.
 However, Ferdinand suddenly alighted from his jeep, lost his balance and was
sideswiped by the overtaking pick-up. Reynaldo did not stop his pick-up and he
proceeded on his way for fear that the bystanders might harm him and his companions.
After bringing his companions to their house, Reynaldo proceeded to Camp Alejo S.
Santos to surrender and report the incident.

Ferdinand sustained: multiple facial injuries, a fracture of the inferior part of the right orbital
wall, and subdural hemorrhage secondary to severe head trauma; that he had become
stuporous and disoriented as to time, place and person. He was also unable to attend to his
general merchandise store for 3months due to temporary amnesia.

Mariano was charged with frustrated murder.

RTC:  found the accused Mariano GUILTY of Frustrated Homicide.
CA: Modified his conviction to Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries and
is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2months and 1day of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to 1year, 7months and 11days of prision correccional, as maximum.
SC: Affirm the conviction of the petitioner for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious
Physical Injuries but modified the penalty.
 The petitioner argues that his guilt for any crime was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt, and claims that Ferdinand’s injuries were the result of a mere accident. He
insists that the CA should have appreciated voluntary surrender as a mitigating
circumstance in his favor.

ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in the
case.
RULING: NO. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated.
Supreme Court held that in the case of a culpable felony, in case of quasi-offenses,
under Art. 365 the judge may or may not consider these mitigating circumstance in the
imposition of penalty.

Under Article 365 (5), it expressly states that in the imposition of the penalties, the
courts shall have their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Art. 64
of the RPC.

According to People v. Medroso, Jr.,

“The rationale of the law” can be found in the fact that in quasi-offenses penalized
under Article 365, the carelessness, imprudence or negligence which
characterizes the wrongful act may vary from one situation to another, in nature,
extent, and resulting consequences, and in order that there may be a fair and just
application of the penalty, the courts must have ample discretion in its imposition,
without being bound by what We may call the mathematical formula provided for
in Article 64 of the RPC. 

Also, the CA erred in imposing on the petitioner the penalty for reckless imprudence
resulting in serious physical injuries. The SC stated that the imposition of the correct penalty
on the offender is the essence of due process of law. Thus, the SC ruled that the straight
penalty of two months of arresto mayor was the correct penalty for the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the CA, subject to the modifications that: the
penalty to be imposed on the petitioner shall be a straight penalty of 2months of arresto mayor;
and the awards for actual and moral damages shall earn 6% interest rate per
annum commencing from the finality of this decision until fully paid.