View full case

ENRIQUE “TOTOY” RIVERA Y DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

On May 6, 1993, an information for direct assault was filed against petitioner Enrique "Totoy" Rivera in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet. The information alleged that on March 20, 1993, Rivera willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked and seriously resisted Lt. Edward Leygo, a policeman, by challenging him to a fistfight and physically assaulting him. Rivera pleaded not guilty during his arraignment and a trial ensued.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Lt. Leygo, SPO1 Jose Bangcado, and Brenda Dup-et as alleged eyewitnesses to the incident. On the other hand, the defense presented Rivera and Alfredo Castro. The trial court summarized the people's version of events as follows:

On March 20, 1993, at around 8:00 PM, Lt. Leygo and SPO1 Joseph Basquial were conducting routinary patrol in La Trinidad, Benguet when they came across a truck unloading chicken dung at Rivera's stall along the Halsema Highway. Lt. Leygo advised the driver to stop unloading as it violated a municipal ordinance. The driver complied, and they escorted the truck back to Poblacion, La Trinidad. Later, SPO1 Bangcado and SPO1 Dayap, also members of the La Trinidad Police, observed a truck loaded with chicken dung and followed and restrained it in compliance with the instructions of their commanding officer and the mayor. Lt. Leygo felt ignored and insulted, so he called for backup officers and went to the scene. Rivera arrived before them and instructed the driver to disobey the policemen's orders and instead follow him. Lt. Leygo and his group were able to catch up with the truck, and Lt. Leygo confronted Rivera about the violation. Instead of answering, Rivera insulted Lt. Leygo and challenged him to a fight. Lt. Leygo tried to arrest Rivera, but Rivera punched him on the face. They grappled, but with the help of the other police officers, Rivera was subdued and eventually pushed into a police car.

The accused, Enrique "Totoy" Rivera, was at the Trading Post in La Trinidad, Benguet on the evening of March 20, 1993, when he learned that the police had prevented his driver from unloading chicken manure in Shilan, La Trinidad. Rivera instructed the driver to bring the manure to Acop, Tublay, Benguet instead. As Rivera followed the truck, he noticed it stopped at the side of the road in Cruz, La Trinidad, where police officers were present. Thinking they were extorting money from the driver, Rivera told the driver to proceed, and he followed. When they reached Dengsi, Tomay, La Trinidad, a police vehicle overtook the truck, another police vehicle ran alongside Rivera's vehicle, and a third police vehicle was behind them. They were forced to stop. Inspector Leygo, who alighted from one of the police vehicles, angrily confronted Rivera, held the collar of his jacket, and tried to put handcuffs on him. Rivera resisted, stating his innocence and asking for the infraction he committed. Leygo insulted Rivera, pointed a gun at him, and smelled of liquor. A crowd started gathering, and Rivera, sensing their support, stated he was going to get his camera from his vehicle. As he was opening the door, Leygo suddenly slapped and boxed him in the stomach, weakening him. Rivera did not resist when he was pushed into the police vehicle. At the police station, Rivera suggested that Leygo undergo a medical examination for alcohol breath, but Rivera was examined first and issued a medical certificate stating his injuries. After considering the parties' versions of the incident, the trial court found Rivera guilty of direct assault and sentenced him accordingly. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court.

  2. Whether the testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO1 Jose Bangcado and Brenda Dup-et corroborated Lt. Leygo's testimony.

  3. Whether the lack of corroboration from other police officers means that the petitioner did not hit Lt. Leygo.

  4. Whether Lt. Leygo was in the performance of his official duties as a police officer and as Deputy Chief of Police for Operation and Patrol at the time he was attacked.

  5. Whether the prosecution's failure to present the doctor who examined Lt. Leygo affected the People's case.

  6. Whether the trial court's observation of petitioner's demeanor and behavior was proper and supported by evidence.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court.

  2. The testimonies of SPO1 Jose Bangcado and Brenda Dup-et did not directly corroborate Lt. Leygo's testimony because they were not asked about what happened after the pushing incident. However, their testimonies were not considered as shortcomings on their part because a witness is only supposed to answer the questions asked of them.

  3. Even if the testimonies of the other police officers did not corroborate Lt. Leygo's testimony, the petitioner's guilt can still be based on the testimony of a single witness if it is straightforward and categorical. There is no reason to suspect that Lt. Leygo falsified the truth or that his observations were inaccurate. The fact that the other police officers did not retaliate does not prove that the petitioner did not hit Lt. Leygo.

  4. Lt. Leygo was in the actual performance of his official duties as a police officer when he was attacked. He was wearing the police uniform and was on board a police car conducting a routine patrol when he encountered the truck unloading chicken manure, a violation of a municipal ordinance.

  5. The prosecution's failure to present the doctor who examined Lt. Leygo did not affect the People's case. The medical certificate is only corroborative in character and not an indispensable element of the crime of direct assault. Lt. Leygo's credible and consistent testimony that he was punched by the petitioner is sufficient evidence.

  6. The trial court's observation of petitioner's demeanor and behavior was proper. The trial court judge is in the best position to observe the demeanor, actuation, and countenance of a witness, which is not normally expressed in the transcripts of testimony. Petitioner's aggressive manner, defensive answers, and aura of arrogance and defiance of authority were correctly noted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed in two ways: (a) by any person who employs force or intimidation for the attainment of purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, and (b) by any person who attacks, employs force, or seriously intimidates or resists any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.

  • The failure of a witness to recall every minute detail of an occurrence does not necessarily detract from their credibility. In fact, it may strengthen their credibility as it eliminates suspicion of coached or rehearsed testimony.

  • The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court, given its opportunity to observe the witnesses first-hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude while testifying. The findings of the trial court on credibility are final and conclusive on appeal, unless there is arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance.

  • The testimony of a single witness, if straightforward and categorical, is sufficient to convict. Corroborative evidence is only necessary if there are reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations were inaccurate.

  • Witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity.

  • Police officers are considered as being in the actual performance of their duties when they are engaged in the enforcement of laws and ordinances.

  • The testimony of a credible and consistent witness can be sufficient evidence to prove a crime.

  • The trial court judge's observations on the demeanor and behavior of a witness are given weight, as they have the opportunity to see and observe matters not normally expressed in the transcripts of testimony.