AUGUSTO BALDE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Having been convicted by the City Court of Legaspi City of the crime
of qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280 (paragraph 2) of the
Revised Penal Code,^[1]
and his conviction having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals which in
consequence imposed on him an indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 months and 1
day of arresto mayor to 2 years, 3 months and 1 day of prision correccional, and the payment of a fine of
P200.00,^[2]
Augusto Balde has instituted the proceedings at bar to challenge the
correctness of those adjudications of his guilt.

He does not deny the essential fact of his having entered the
dwelling of the complaining witness, Leonida Achacon, without her permission,
but he argues that this does not make him guilty of the felony charged the gravamen of which is
entrance against the will of the complainant, or against the latter’s presumed
or express prohibition.1 He also
contends that he was denied the right of preliminary investigation in that he
was not accorded an opportunity to present evidence in the course thereof.2

Balde’s arguments entail a review of the evidence to determine
first, whether or not the facts justify the conclusion of a presumed
prohibition against his entrance to Leonidas dwelling, and additionally,
whether or not the latter’s 10-year old maidservant had in fact granted Balde
permission to come in; and second, whether or not his proofs are sufficient to
establish that he was in truth deprived of the right to adduce evidence at the
preliminary investigation before the fiscal. This consideration warrants giving short shrift to Balde’s appeal.

It is axiomatic that this Court will not generally review the
factual findings of the Court of Appeals. And it should be stressed that except in criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher,3 appeals to the Supreme Court are not a matter of
right but of sound judicial discretion, allowed only on questions of law which
must be distinctly set forth in the petition for review on certiorari, and only
when there are special and important reasons therefor.4 The
record discloses no such special and important reasons.

In any case, the record shows no reversible error in the factual
conclusions of the Court of Appeals to the effect that (1) that the relations
between Balde and Leonida, his cousin, were of so unfriendly a character as to
give sufficient warning upon ** (appellant Balde) that his entry into
(Leonida’s) house ** was unwarranted anti objectionable,5 i.e.,
unwelcome and prohibited; (2) that Leonida’s housemaid, Felicitas, had not
really given Balde permission to come into the house;6 (3) that
these circumstances, and the actuality of Balde’s having laid hands on Leonida
after intruding into her dwelling, are adequately proven by the evidence given
by the prosecution witnesses who were deemed to be more credible and trustworthy
than the defense witnesses;1 and (4) Balde’s proofs failed to establish that
the fiscal s preliminary investigation had not been regular.2

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
denied, the judgment of the Court of Appeals subject thereof being in accord
with the facts and the law, with costs against the petitioner.

Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Gancayco, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
Appendix A, Appellant’s Brief in C.A., rollo, p. 30 et seq

^[2]
Rollo; pp, 16-28

1 Id., pp. 71-72, citing Peo v. Peralta, 42 Phil. 69

2 Id., pp. 72-73

3 Sec. 5[2], [d], ART. VIII, 1987
Constitution

4 Secs. 1, 2 and 4, Rule 45, Rules
of Court; see Sotto v. Commission on Elections, 76 Phil. 516, 521

5 Id., pp. 20-21

6 Id., pp, 21 et
seq

1 Id., pp. 23-24

2 Id., pp. 24-27