PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENEDICT BARCELINO Y DAVID, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Barcelino

The Case

This is People versus Barcelino, a criminal appeal from a conviction for violence against women. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Benedict Barcelino, the live-in partner of the private complainant Susana Mendoza, for mauling her in their home on the evening of November 21, 2012. The charge was violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act Number 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold onto: it shows how a single judicial admission in open court can supply the very element the defense later denies, and it teaches that a victim's failure to shout for help is not an element the prosecution must prove.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 270, and pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits followed, and on September 16, 2013 the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(a) of Republic Act Number 9262. He was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, ordered to pay a fine of 100,000 pesos, and directed to undergo psychological counseling for six months before the Valenzuela City Social Welfare Development Office, with compliance to be submitted to the court. From that decision the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the trial court's finding of guilt despite what he claimed was the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Susana Mendoza and Benedict Barcelino had been live-in partners for eighteen years. On the evening of November 21, 2012, at around ten o'clock, they were at home. While she was cleaning her face, the accused called her, and she did not come. He became angry and began to curse her. He then hit the back of her head, pulled her hair, dragged her into their room, pushed her onto the bed, choked her, and boxed her forehead and shoulder. He was drunk at the time. She passed out from the blows, and he called her daughter to give her water. He then began consoling her. She testified that he had hurt her many times before, whenever he drank liquor.

She reported the mauling at the police station and executed an affidavit. She also sought medical attention, and a medico-legal slip was issued. She testified that she wanted him incarcerated, and that their on-and-off relationship had affected her physically and emotionally.

For the defense, the accused admitted that he had drunk one bottle of beer that evening, that he called the complainant to come inside their room and she refused, and that an altercation ensued. On direct examination he stated that he punched her on her left forehead on the night of November 21, 2012. He denied inflicting the other injuries shown in the photographs, and said he was not certain whether he caused one of them. He was arrested on the evening of November 22, 2012. His sister testified for the defense, but she admitted she did not witness the incident and had no written proof of any injuries to the accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted the injuries on the private complainant.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved the element of force or intimidation, given that the private complainant made no outcry while she was being hurt.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court is in accord with law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5(a) of Republic Act Number 9262 defines the act charged, and the Court cites it as the provision the accused violated:

Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts: (a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child.

This is the very act the trial court found proven, and the Court affirms that the prosecution firmly established it.

Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of Court governs judicial admissions, and it is the provision that defeats the accused's denial:

Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Because the accused admitted the punch in his own testimony, the prosecution needed no further proof of that fact.

Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court treats a party's admission as evidence against him:

Section 26. Admissions of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

This confirms that his testimony may be used against him.

Rule 130, Section 33 of the Rules of Court governs confessions:

Section 33. Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

This supports the Court's treatment of his statement as evidence of a high order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution did prove the infliction of injury, because the accused himself admitted on direct examination that he punched the complainant on her left forehead on the night of November 21, 2012. The Court called a judicial confession evidence of a high order, presuming that no sane person would deliberately confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. It applied the Rules of Court provisions quoted above and concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that the prosecution firmly established the violation of Section 5(a).

On the second issue, the Court held that the argument of no force or intimidation was absurd in light of the admission. As the Court put it, basic knowledge and common sense dictate that a punch obviously requires force from the one delivering it. On the absence of an outcry, the Court held that this should not be taken against the victim, because the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable. It recalled the time-honored precept that different people react differently to a given situation, and that there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty imposed by the trial court is in full accord with the law, and found no cogent reason to disturb it.

Doctrine

A judicial admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof, and may be contradicted only by showing palpable mistake or that no admission was made. A judicial confession is evidence of a high order, on the presumption that no sane person would deliberately confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. In a prosecution under Section 5(a) of Republic Act Number 9262, physical harm caused by the accused to the woman is the act punished, and a punch necessarily carries the force that the law contemplates. The absence of an outcry by the victim is not fatal to the prosecution, because there is no standard behavioral response to a frightful experience.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the trial court in full, including the penalty of six months imprisonment, the fine of 100,000 pesos, and the order to undergo psychological counseling.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judicial confession is evidence of a high order, and a punch obviously requires force. Examiners use this case to test judicial admissions under Rule 129, Section 4, and to test whether a victim's failure to cry out defeats a prosecution under Section 5(a) of Republic Act Number 9262.