PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BBB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CORALES, J.:
The Antecedents
AAA and BBB were legally married[4] on April 22, 1997 but they have been living separately since August 2006 because of the latter’s purported extra-marital affairs. For the physical violence allegedly committed against AAA, BBB was charged under an Information[5] which reads:
That on or about the 12th day of March 2007, in the City of Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a legal husband of [AAA], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously employ physical violence upon [AAA], unmindful and without regard to the victim as a woman, thereby inflicting physical injuries which required medical attendance for less than nine (9) days and incapacitated her from performing her usual customary labor for the same period of time.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, BBB pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Upon motion of his counsel, the pre-trial was accordingly terminated.[6]
In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of AAA while BBB testified in his defense.
The Version of the Prosecution
On several occasions, BBB inflicted physical injuries upon AAA by pushing her against the wall, pinning her down with his body (dinaganan), and choking her in front of their two (2) children. In another incident, subject of this case a quo, which happened at around 7:30 in the evening of March 12, 2007, AAA was passing by the house of her mother-in-law when she saw BBB. She tried to talk to BBB about the latter’s failure to give support to their children until an altercation ensued between them. Despite AAA‘s attempts to fend him off, BBB shoved her, banged her head against the hood of a vehicle, and strangled her while saying “Tumigil ka”. She grabbed BBB‘s arm pleading that they should instead talk but the latter forcibly held her with both hands before leaving. Thereafter, AAA sought medical care at the Pagamutang Bayan ng Malabon, where she was diagnosed with abrasion, contusion, and hematoma on her right wrist.[7] AAA claimed that the incident brought her trauma and depression as she could not even believe that BBB could harm her.[8]
The Version of Accused-Appellant
BBB admitted that he and AAA were “pushing each other and hurting each other” in the evening of March 12, 2007 while they were at his mother’s house. At that time, he was about to get the car from their garage but he suddenly saw AAA. They argued about their children’s support and AAA began to scratch him. In defense, BBB held AAA‘s wrist. He then called his mother who, together with his sister, talked to AAA. They all went inside his mother’s house, discussed about children’s support, and parted ways.[9]
The Ruling of the RTC
In its May 16, 2013 Decision,[10] the RTC rejected BBB‘s theory of self-defense for dearth of sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. It reasoned that the abrasion, contusion, and hematoma sustained by AAA on her wrist show the force applied upon her by BBB, which is clearly excessive of the intention to defend himself from the puny efforts of his wife. The RTC disposed the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused [BBB] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of R.A. 9262. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of THREE (3) MONTHS of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs. Accused is ordered to pay a fine of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php. 200,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Further, accused shall undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment in accordance with Section 6 of said law, and to report compliance of the same to the Court.
SO ORDERED.(Emphasis and italics appear in the original text of the Decision)
Insisting on his innocence, BBB is now before Us via the instant appeal raising the following issues:[11]
Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the accused based merely on abrasion and (sic) contusion [, and] hematoma sustained by the private complainant on her right wrist and the same was (sic) appreciated by the Court as excessive which constitute violation of Republic Act 9262?
Whether or not the private complainant is considered as the unlawful aggressor considering [that] the Court failed to appreciate that the situs of aggression happened on the house of the mother-in-law of the private complainant or the ancestral house of the accused and not the house of the private complainant?
Whether or not the lower Court erred that private complainant is already prepared for quarrel for she purposely waited for the accused at his mother[‘s] house on the date of the incident?
BBB invites this Court to revisit his theory of self-defense which is a justifying circumstance under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. He insists that it was AAA who purposely waited for him at his mother’s house and instigated the violence on that faithful day of March 12, 2007. Thus, he “held her wrist” only to protect himself from AAA‘s aggression. Claiming that he is a quiet person without any record of physical violence, BBB stresses that AAA only wanted to get even with him and concocted a story of physical abuse to his damage.[12]
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of the Philippines, counters that the elements of the crime of violence against women were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. It defends the RTC in giving credence to AAA‘s clear, positive, and straightforward testimony on her relationship with accused-appellant and the latter’s violent acts committed against her. The OSG further argues that accused-appellant’s invocation of self-defense patently lacks merit for being uncorroborated and extremely doubtful. It stresses that by invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence now shifted to accused-appellant who, nonetheless, failed to discharge the same.[13]
This Court’s Ruling
The appeal is devoid of merit.
BBB’s Guilt: Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt by AAA’s Credible Testimony
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines violence against women as any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, within or without the family abode, which results in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
In relation thereto, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 enumerates the act or series acts that constitutes violence against women and these include any form of threat to cause the woman physical harm, viz.:
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;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm; (Emphasis supplied)x x x
Based on the foregoing, accused-appellant may be convicted under Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 9262 if the following elements concur: (a) the offended woman is either his wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had a sexual dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and (b) he caused physical harm to said woman.
The presence of the first element is beyond dispute in this case. AAA and BBB were married at the time of the complained incident as shown by their Marriage Certificate.[14] The fact that they are living separately does not remove the present case from the ambit of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 since the said law shields an abused woman who is the accused’s “wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child”.
The second element was proven beyond moral certainty by the clear and positive testimony of AAA. She described how BBB showed his violent behavior when she asked him for their children’s support by shoving her, banging her head against the hood of a vehicle, and strangling her while saying “Tumigil ka”. Despite AAA‘s pleas, BBB forcibly held her wrist with both hands from which she sustained abrasion, contusion, and hematoma on her right wrist.[15] BBB‘s claim that he only grabbed AAA by the left wrist, but it was the latter’s right wrist that manifested hematoma cannot simply overcome the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. Indeed, the injuries found on AAA that same evening, as shown by the Medico Legal[16] issued shortly after her and the accused-appellant’s encounter, point to no other conclusion but that it was BBB who inflicted the said injuries. It is also significant to note that there was no allegation, much less evidence, tending to show that in passing by the house of her mother-in-law, AAA‘s intention was actually to put up a fight and not simply to discuss about BBB‘s failure to support their children. What is crucial is that at the precise moment of AAA and BBB‘s the confrontation, the latter physically assaulted the former.
Self-defense and Lack of History of Physical Violence: Unavailing
Notably, BBB admitted that he and AAA were “pushing each other and hurting each other” in the evening of March 12, 2007 but claims that his action against AAA was a measure of self-defense. Well-settled is the rule that the prosecution ordinarily bears the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, once the accused admits commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as defense, the burden shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused defending himself.[17] The most important element is the first. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not just a threatening or intimidating attitude.[18]
Here, BBB‘s uncorroborated and self-serving testimony is not enough to substantiate AAA‘s alleged unlawful aggression as would justify the physical violence he committed against her. He did not even adduce evidence of any wound from his wife’s supposed scratching or clawing. Granting that AAA surprised BBB with her presence at the time of the incident, there is no showing that it in itself posed physical peril, whether actual or threatened, to accused-appellant. Notably, AAA was alone and unarmed when she passed by the house of BBB‘s mother. Since BBB failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression, his plea of self-defense necessarily fails.
Similarly, BBB‘s assertions that he is a quiet man without history of physical violence need not further detain Our attention. Aside from being unsupported, they are strictly immaterial to the subject offense, for an accused is not entitled to acquittal simply on account of previous good moral character or exemplary conduct. Rather, the reversal or affirmance of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution discharged its duty of proving guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. As the evidence herein warrants the resolution of this issue in the affirmative, the proposition of the good moral character of the accused-appellant cannot prevail.[19]
All told, We find no necessity to either depart from the jurisprudential principle affording great respect and even finality to the trial court’s assessment of the witness’ credibility or to review, much less, overturn its conclusions on the matter of AAA‘s credibility.[20] Conversely, nothing in BBB‘s defense overcomes the clear, straightforward, unequivocal and positive declarations of AAA that she was physically abused by her husband. The RTC did not therefore err in finding that the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The May 16, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 169, Malabon City in Crim. Case No. 37701-MN is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Villon (Chairperson), and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
[1] See Notice of Appeal in relation to the July 15, 2013 Order giving due course thereto, records, pages 153 and 149, respectively.
[2] Penned by Judge Emmanuel D. Laurea, rollo, pages 28-32.
[3] The names and other personal circumstances tending to establish the parties’ identity and those of their immediate family are withheld pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, “An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the “Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children,” effective November 5, 2004; and A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC, “Protocol and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names”.
[4] See Marriage Certificate, Exhibit Folder, page 1.
[5] See Information, records, page 1.
[6] See March 11, 2009 Order, ibid., page 107.
[7] See Medico Legal, ibid., page 4.
[8] See TSN, AAA, October 27, 2010, pages 2-8.
[9] See TSN, BBB, October 27, 2010, pages 2-6.
[10] Supra, at note 2.
[11] See page 8 of Brief for Accused-Appellant BBB, rollo, page 22.
[12] See Brief for Accused-Appellant BBB, ibid., pages 15-26.
[13] See Appellee’s Brief, ibid., pages 45-61.
[14] Supra, at note 4.
[15] See TSN, AAA, October 27, 2010, supra, at note 8.
[16] Supra, at note 7.
[17] See People v. Campos, G.R. No. 176061. July 4, 2011.
[18] See People v. Sabella, G.R. No. 183092. May 30, 2011.
[19] See People v. Diopita, G.R. No. 130601. December 4, 2000.
[20] See People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 188352. September 1, 2010 and People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 195239. March 7, 2012.