NATHANIEL ANDAYA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE EDGAR GUSTILO AND JUDGE SIMPLICIA MEDINA, RESPONDENTS.

Nathaniel Andaya, accused-petitioner, was convicted in a judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch IV, Iloilo City of the offense of less serious physical injuries, the dispositive portion whereof reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the accused Nathaniel Andaya guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, without the attendant circumstances and hereby
sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of four (4) months and to pay the
costs.

“With regard to the civil aspect, the same is deemed
instituted.  Based on the facts presented
and established complainants Noel Jardeleza is
entitled to P10,000.00 moral damages, he being injured in a public place where
he was placed in shame and embarrassment, just because he exercised his duties as a faithful
and honest public servant; P5, 000.00 for actual damages; and P7,000.00 for
exemplary damages.

(p. 3, Petition, p. 7, Rollo)

The aforequoted
decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch XXVIII, Iloilo City
which affirmed in toto the judgment of
conviction.

The accused-petitioner thus
filed a petition for review of the Regional Trial Court’s decision with the
then Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals*), public respondent herein, which, on May 27, 1986,
affirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the accused-petitioner’s civil
liability in this wise:

“Accused-appellant
is ordered to pay Noel Jardeleza the
following amounts:

‘(a)  P5,000.00 as moral damages;

‘(b) 
P2,500.00 as temperate damages.’”

It
deleted the award of actual and exemplary damages.

On June 13,
1986, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was likewise denied by the then
Intermediate Appellate Court, hence this petition for certiorari.

Prosecution evidence
consists mainly of the testimony of the complainant Noel Jardeleza, corroborated by those of two other witnesses, Dr. Alejandro Gonzales
and Engineer Saluta.  Such evidence
may be summed up as follows:

“On August 10, 1982
at around 5:30 p.m. private
complainant, Noel Jardeleza and companion,
Engineer Romeo Saluta went to Drive Inn Eatery at
Fort San Pedro, Iloilo City.  While
at said eatery, they joined the table of Dr. Alejandro Gonzales, a relative
of Noel Jardeleza and ordered beer.  Subsequently, petitioner Nathaniel Andaya arrived at the same
eatery and proceeded to the place where the three were
seated and without saying a word allegedly pistol whipped Noel Jardeleza with a
Caliber .45 pistol.  Noel Jardeleza was hit on the back of the head and when he slumped down, he was kicked by the petitioner.  Thereafter, Dr. Gonzales and Engineer SaIuta
brought Noel Jardeleza
to Iloilo Doctors Hospital where he was attended by Dr. Soriano and Dr. Muyco.  Private complainant sustained physical injuries and as a result of said
incident, petitioner
was charged with Less Serious
Physical Injuries.  This is the version of the private complainant, Noel Jardeleza and corroborated
by his relative, Dr. Alejandro Gonzales and Engineer Saluta.

(p. 2, Decision; p. 18, Rollo)

The records further show
that at the time the incident took place, Jardeleza
was then a Technical Loans Inspector at the Development Bank of the Philippines. 
Also, according to Dr. Alejandro Gonzales, when Jardeleza
slumped down on the concrete pavement, Andaya kicked
him twice, poked the gun, and uttered “What did you do with my brother in law?” (p. 30, t.s.n.,
January 14, 1983).  As a result of the assault, the victim sustained
injuries consisting of 
“2 x 2 cm. V-shaped laceration at the right occipital area,
abrasion, contusion right hand, palmar surface.” (Comment, p. 9; Rollo, p.4)

For his part, the
accused-petitioner offered the defense of denial and presented his own
witnesses to support him.  Their theory
is as follows:

“Complainant Noel Jardeleza was at the Fort San Pedro Drive Inn
with his officemate, Engr. Romeo Saluta
drinking beer in the afternoon of August 10, 1982. 
Later, this twosome joined the
group of Dr. Alejandro Gonzales in
another table and continued drinking beer.  (TSN of January 4, 1983, Testimony of Engr. Saluta, pp. 25-27; TSN of Jardeleza, pp. 7-9)

“It was much later
in the afternoon of August
10, 1982 when petitioner, herein accused Nathaniel Andaya invited his friends. 
Hernani Sollano and Romeo Pendon
for a snack.

“Upon reaching the said place, they saw the group of Noel Jardeleza drinking beer and apparently already tipsy.  At this juncture, petitioner approached the table of Jardeleza’s
group in order to talk to Noel Jardeleza, but when he
came nearer, Jardeleza
pointed his right hand at the
face of the accused.  At this very precise moment, petitioner brushed aside and parried the hand of Jardeleza
in an instinctive defensive
gesture as petitioner mistook said gesture for an oncoming attack.  Said parrying
act caused Noel Jardeleza to fall on the
cemented pavement, thus causing him
some injuries.  (TSN of
August 25, 1983, Testimony of Hernani SoIlano, pp. 19–18;
TSN of March 7, 1984, Testimony of Nathaniel Andaya,
pp. 23-38).”

(p.
2 Memorandum for Petitioner; p. 79, Rollo)

As a result of the aforesaid incident, NathanieI Andaya was charged
with the offense of Less Serious
Physical lnjuries and was eventually convicted therefor.

Two issues are raised for Our determination, namely:

(1)  Whether or not
petitioner’s guilt for less serious physical injuries has been established
beyond reasonable doubt; and

(2)  Whether or not the award
of moral and temperate damages made in favor of Jardeleza was in accordance with law.      

The defense contends that Jardeleza
injured himself.  According to Andaya,
when he was approaching the complainant, the latter raised his right arm “in
a gesture not unlike a person
ready to attack”.  Andaya’s instinct was to parry Jardeleza’s
arm, which caused the latter to fall off from his chair and thereafter on the
cemented ground.

With two conflicting theories, the real issue in the instant case,
therefore, rests on credibility.

It is undisputed that there was a physical contact between the
petitioner and the victim.  While Andaya claims that he merely pushed aside Jardeleza, the latter maintains that he was
pistol-whipped.  In convicting the
petitioner, the trial court relied heavily on the evidence advanced by the
prosecution.  After a careful review of the evidence on
record, We find no plausible reason to hold otherwise.

It is the contention of
the petitioner that when there are two conflicting theories, as in the case at bar, existence of motive is essential in determining
which of the two is more likely to be true. 
He asserts that the prosecution has failed to show his motive in
inflicting injuries on the person of the complainant on August 10,
1982.  Petitioner further avers that there is no
basis for the trial court’s finding that he was “hot-tempered” and
that his conviction for maltreatment in another case cannot be used against him
in the present case.

The aforesaid assertions
cannot be given credence as such cannot overcome the evidence established by
the prosecution.

Petitioner’s guilt
was not arrived at solely on the basis of his temperament, motive, or previous
criminal involvement.  The trial court
found that credible witnesses testified on the identity of the petitioner Andaya as the assailant of the victim Jardeleza.  Dr. Alejandro Gonzales, a prosecution witness, was described
by the trial court as “a person of integrity and not a drinker”.  He attested that “they had not been able
to start drinking when a man suddenly passed by my left side and approached
Noel Jardeleza and directly hit him with a .45
caliber pistol.” In the same testimony,
he identified said assailant as Nathaniel
Andaya.  (p. 6,
t.s.n., Jan. 4,
1983) The aforesaid testimony was corroborated by
Engineer Romeo Saluta and complainant Noel Jardeleza himself.

Undoubtedly, such
positive identification, even in
the absence of any showing of petitioner’s motive, is sufficient for
conviction.  It must be borne in mind that
motive is never an essential element of a
crime.  As expressed in the case
of People vs. Yurong, 133 SCRA 26 citing People v. Realon, et al., 99 SCRA 422, “(M)otive
is not essential to conviction when the accused as in this case, were
positively identified and there is no doubt as to their identity as
culprits.”

Evidently therefore, there is no need to prove motive where the
culprit has been positively identified by eyewitnesses.  But in any
event, for whatever it may be worth, evidence was also adduced to show
that the petitioner harbored resentments against the victim because the latter had rejected the fishpond loan
application of the former.  The trial
court aptly said:

“The motive behind the incident is very strong on the part of
the accused Nathaniel Andaya.  The altercation between the accused’s brother-in-law Eliseo Somes and complainant Noel Jardeleza
was only four days ago and the very cause of the altercation was the
unfavorable recommendation made by Noel Jardeleza on
the very fishpond application of the accused Nathaniel Andaya”
(p. 15, Decision).

Anent the relationship of Dr. Gonzales (a relative) and Engineer Saluta (a friend)
to Jardeleza, We agree with the respondent Court that
said affinity did not affect their credibility as witnesses.  Their
testimonies were not only natural, clear, and spontaneous but corroborated
circumstantially by medical findings. 
Besides, there is nothing in the record which shows any motive which
could have impelled these two witnesses to pervert the truth or falsely testify
against the petitioner.  As held in the
case of People v. Canada, 144 SCRA 121, “(W)hen there is no showing of
improper motive on the part of witnesses for testifying against the accused,
the fact that they are related to the victim does not render their clear and
positive testimony less worthy of full faith and credit.  On the contrary, their natural interest in
serving the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons
other than the culprits, for otherwise, the latter would thereby gain
immunity.” (People v. Narajos,
145 SCRA 99 citing People v. Radomes, 141 SCRA 548;
People v. Jabequero, 125 SCRA 144).

Truly, the defense has
failed to show by way of evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated
to testify against the petitioner with partiality, bias, or prejudice.

On the basis of the
foregoing, We find that the petitioner’s guilt has
been established beyond reasonable doubt; thus, there is no reason to reverse
the judgment affirming the petitioner’s conviction.

Lastly, We sustain the respondent Court of Appeals on the civil
damages due, to wit:

“Due to the social standing of the victim, his employment
classification and the circumstances under which he was assaulted, the reduced
amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages is considered fair and just.  We agree with the People’s counsel that
considering that the complainant-victim has been injured and medically treated
and despite the absence of proof of actual damage, he is entitled to temperate
damages in the amount of
P2,500.00 (Necessito, et al. v. Paras,
et al., 104 Phil. 75, 85; Art. 2224, N.C.C.).”

The New Civil Code provides:

“Art. 2217.  Moral
damages include physical suffering, xxx fright, xxx social humiliation, and
similar injury.  Though incapable of pecuniary
estimation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of
the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.

“Art. 2219.  Moral
damages may be recovered in the following analogous cases:

‘(1)  A
criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

x   x         x”

It cannot be denied that Noel Jardeleza
suffered physically and that he was frightened and humiliated socially.  As the Solicitor General
correctly observed:  (a) he was mauled by
petitioner in a public place (a restaurant) and in the presence of Gonzales, Saluta,
and others; (b) he sustained injuries requiring confinement for seven days, and
(c) he was frightened as petitioner poked a gun at him.  (Comment, p. 9).

The award of temperate damages in the amount of P2,500.00 is moderate and reasonable, considering that the
victim has been injured and medically treated and consequently had to spend for
medicines, hospitalization and doctor’s fees.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED, with
costs against the accused-petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Justice
Esteban M. Lising and concurred in by Justices Rodolfo A. Nocon and Federico
B. Alfonso, Jr.