JOSELITO BERNAL, DENNIS BERNAL, JONATHAN BALDOMAR, AND EMMANUEL BATARA, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RICARDO F. CALARA, RESPONDENTS.

Bernal versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Bernal versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case for slight physical injuries. Joselito Bernal, Dennis Bernal, Jonathan Baldomar, and Emmanuel Batara, together with Mark Allen Estramadura in a consolidated companion petition, ask the Supreme Court to overturn their conviction for mauling Ricardo Calara on a Makati street in February 2005. The case matters for three reasons a reviewee should hold onto: it shows how the Court treats minor inconsistencies in witness testimony, it restates the essence of due process when an accused is not put on the witness stand, and it illustrates conspiracy proved by concerted action rather than prior agreement. It also corrects the statutory basis of the penalty while leaving the prison term intact.

Procedural History

The accused were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65. After trial, the court convicted all five of slight physical injuries under paragraph 1 of Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced each to ten days of imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 57, which affirmed the conviction in a decision dated 03 January 2012. Their separate motions for reconsideration were denied. Joselito, Dennis, Baldomar, and Batara then filed one petition for review, and Estremadura filed a separate petition for review. Because both petitions arose from the same set of circumstances, the Court of Appeals consolidated them. The appellate court denied the petitions, and the matter reached the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

At about half past eleven in the evening of 11 February 2005, Ricardo Calara was conversing with Rolando Calara and Monico Dela Torre when Joselito Bernal approached, pointed at them, and shouted invectives, threatening to implicate them in a case. When Calara answered back, Joselito challenged him to a fight and walked toward the corner of Kalayaan Avenue and Pitogo Street, where his companions Baldomar, Dennis, Batara, and Estremadura were apparently waiting.

Baldomar punched the victim first, followed by Dennis, Batara, and Estremadura, while Joselito kicked his side. The victim fought back and bit Baldomar. Joselito ran to their lugawan stall, took a knife, and was about to attack when the victim called for help. Rolando and Dela Torre came to pacify the parties. When members of the Bantay Bayan arrived, Joselito threw the knife away and kicked the victim, who was slumped on the street, in the face, again shouting threats.

The victim was treated at the Ospital ng Makati. The medico-legal officer testified to a bluish black discoloration on the upper left portion of his head, a discoloration on his left mandible, and an abrasion on his left arm, injuries that could have been inflicted by one or more persons and would heal in about three weeks. A neighbor, Jeffrey Alialy, corroborated the victim, having seen the group gang up on him. The defense claimed that only Baldomar struck the victim, in self-defense, after the victim drew an icepick, and that Joselito merely walked away.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and the eyewitness.
• Whether or not Estremadura was denied due process because he was not presented as a witness in his own defense.
• Whether or not conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the petitioners were correctly convicted of slight physical injuries and sentenced under the proper paragraph of Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ARTICLE 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished: 1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period; 2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance; 3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.

This is the provision under which the petitioners were charged and convicted, and its paragraphs fix which penalty applies depending on incapacity for labor or the need for medical attendance.

Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 27. Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.

This defines the range of the penalty imposed, which the Court used to test whether the ten-day sentence was lawful.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial judge's assessment of credibility deserves great weight and respect, because the trial judge had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses. Slight inconsistencies in a witness's declarations hardly weaken their probative value; immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit testimony on the very act charged, and as long as the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies cannot destroy their credibility. Both the victim and Alialy positively identified the petitioners, and Alialy was a disinterested witness with no false motive. The alleged discrepancy in the number of injuries was minor and trivial.

On the second issue, the Court held that Estremadura's right to due process was not violated even though he was not presented as a witness. He was represented by counsel, was given the chance to submit his evidence, and the defense witnesses testified for the defense. The essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence, not the certainty of success. The Court also refused to give weight to the victim's supposed statement during barangay conciliation that Estremadura was a mere spectator, because statements taken ex parte are inferior to testimonies given in open court; the victim's sworn statement and his testimony both identified Estremadura as one of his attackers.

On the third issue, the Court held that to establish conspiracy it is not essential that there be proof of a previous agreement to commit the crime; it is sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. After Joselito challenged the victim to a fight, the others came to Baldomar's aid and mauled and kicked the victim, showing unity of design and purpose. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petitioners were correctly convicted of slight physical injuries, but since there was no showing that the victim was incapacitated from carrying out his habitual work, the penalty should have been that of paragraph 2 of Article 266, namely arresto menor or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed the ten-day imprisonment because it falls within the duration of arresto menor, which runs from one day to thirty days.

Doctrine

First, credibility is best assessed by the trial judge, and minor inconsistencies on immaterial details do not destroy a witness's testimony where the witnesses corroborate one another on the material points. Second, the essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; an accused who is represented by counsel and afforded that opportunity cannot claim denial of due process merely because he was not himself put on the witness stand. Third, conspiracy may be proved by concerted action pursuant to a common objective, without proof of a prior agreement, and the act of one conspirator is the act of all. Fourth, under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the paragraph that applies depends on whether the injuries incapacitated the victim for labor or required medical attendance; where there is no showing of incapacity, paragraph 2 governs, and the penalty must still fall within the range of arresto menor under Article 27, from one day to thirty days.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City convicting the petitioners of slight physical injuries and sentencing them to ten days of imprisonment.

Remember This

Remember the line that conspiracy may be shown by concerted action, for the act of one is the act of all. Examiners like this case for the due process question on an accused who never took the witness stand, and for the rule that the penalty must match the correct paragraph of Article 266 while still falling within the range of arresto menor.