View full case

RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

On the night of March 14, 2007, petitioner Ricky Dinamling evicted AAA, his partner of five years, and their two children from their boarding house. Dinamling accused AAA of using the place as a "whore house" and threw a baby's feeding bottle outside the house, causing it to break. AAA went to the house of BBB and asked for help in fetching her children. When BBB and another friend went to get the children, Dinamling had already left with the older child, leaving only the baby behind. Six days later, on March 20, 2007, Dinamling physically assaulted AAA by punching her ear, kicking her, and pulling down her pants and underwear in public. AAA suffered physical injuries and had an incomplete abortion as a result of the incident. Dinamling was charged with violation of Section 5(i), in relation to Section 6(f) of RA No. 9262 based on the two incidents. After trial, Dinamling was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and was sentenced to imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications on the penalty. Dinamling filed a Petition for Review assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The case involves a petition for review filed by the petitioner, who was convicted of the crime of violence against women and children. The petitioner raised issues regarding the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court. The Court rules that questions of fact cannot be entertained in a petition for review, unless there are recognized exceptions. However, the petitioner did not cite any of these exceptions in his petition. Even after a close examination of the case records, the Court found no error in the appellate court's finding of guilt. The victim, AAA, testified and provided clear and categorical evidence of the incidents that gave rise to the charges. She narrated how the petitioner evicted them from a boarding house and inflicted pain on her and her child. This testimony was deemed worthy of credence by the Court.

AAA testified that on the evening of March 20, 2007, she was at the house of CCC waiting for a friend when Dinamling arrived and shouted at her. He then proceeded to box her left ear. She felt blood in her ear and followed Dinamling outside to ask why he was still following them. Dinamling continued shouting at her and pulled down her pants and panty, humiliating her in front of a small store and the people present. It was dark but there was a street light nearby. Dinamling then threw AAA's pants and panty back at her and left. The following day, AAA experienced pain in her back and later had profuse bleeding, resulting in an abortion. AAA also testified about her fear of Dinamling and previous incidents of physical abuse. Her mother, DDD, testified to AAA's maltreatment and miscarriage from Dinamling's abuse.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the elements of the crime of causing mental or emotional anguish under Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262 were established.

  2. Whether the testimony of a single witness, the complainant, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

  3. Whether the defense of denial and alibi can prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.

  4. Whether the defense of alibi can prosper if the accused was in the same municipality as the place of the crime.

  5. Whether the testimony of a doctor expressing uncertainty as to the cause of the abortion exculpates the accused.

  6. Whether the physical injuries suffered by the victim are necessary elements of the crime charged.

  7. Whether the alleged miscarriage or incomplete abortion is an essential element of the crime charged.

  8. Whether the aggravating circumstance of the victim's pregnancy should be considered in the determination of the penalty for the crime committed in Criminal Case No. 1701.

  9. Whether the aggravating circumstance of the victim's pregnancy should be considered in the determination of the penalty for the crime committed in Criminal Case No. 1702.

RULING:

  1. The elements of the crime of causing mental or emotional anguish as defined in Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262 were established. The testimonies of the complainant and her mother sufficiently established that the accused caused mental or emotional anguish to the complainant through acts of repeated verbal and emotional abuse, public ridicule, and humiliation.

  2. The testimony of a single witness, as long as it is credible, suffices to establish the guilt of the accused. In this case, the complainant's testimony was considered credible because it bore the earmarks of truth and sincerity, and was delivered spontaneously, naturally, and in a straightforward manner. Corroborative testimony is not needed to support a conviction if the single witness's testimony is credible.

  3. The defense of denial and alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the accused's defense of denial and alibi was not able to overcome the clear and positive identification made by the victim. Thus, the trial and appellate courts correctly found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. The defense of alibi can only prosper if the accused can prove that not only was he at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity during its commission. In this case, the accused's alibi that he was on duty at the police station, which is just two to three minutes away from the place of the crime, does not hold water. Thus, his defense of alibi cannot prosper.

  5. The testimony of a doctor expressing uncertainty as to the cause of the abortion does not exculpate the accused. In this case, the fact that the abortion was caused by the mauling of the victim is not an element of the crime charged. Therefore, the uncertainty expressed by the doctor does not absolve the accused from liability.

  6. The physical injuries suffered by the victim are not necessary elements of the crime charged. The focus of the crime of violence against women and their children under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 is the causation of non-physical suffering, such as mental or emotional distress, anxiety, social shame, or dishonor on the offended party. The use of physical violence, even if it does not cause bodily harm, falls under Section 5(i) only if it is alleged and proven to have caused mental or emotional anguish. The physical injuries suffered are only relevant if they lead to such psychological harm. Thus, proof of physical injuries is not needed for conviction, and the lack of such injuries does not lead to acquittal.

  7. The alleged miscarriage or incomplete abortion is not an essential element of the crime charged. It is the fact of pregnancy of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime that constitutes an aggravating circumstance, not an element, of the offense. The fact of pregnancy is proven by the victim's unrebutted testimony and the medical certificate she presented. While the incomplete abortion or miscarriage may logically derive from the fact of pregnancy, it is not necessary to establish any of the elements of the crime. Hence, the alleged miscarriage or incomplete abortion does not lead to the petitioner's acquittal.

  8. The aggravating circumstance of the victim's pregnancy should be considered in the determination of the penalty for the crime committed in Criminal Case No. 1701. It automatically raises the accused's penalty to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed under RA 9262 and Article 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the maximum penalty imposed on the petitioner is ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment, and the minimum penalty is two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional.

  9. The aggravating circumstance of the victim's pregnancy should also be considered in the determination of the penalty for the crime committed in Criminal Case No. 1702. It automatically raises the accused's penalty to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed under RA 9262 and Article 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the maximum penalty imposed on the petitioner is twelve (12) years of prision mayor, and the minimum penalty is six (6) years of prision correccional.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262 defines the crime of causing mental or emotional anguish to women and their children. The elements of the crime include: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children, (2) there is a relationship between the offender and the woman, (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish, and (4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children, or similar acts.

  • The testimony of a single witness, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. In the case of violations under Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262, the same treatment should be applied as in cases of rape or homicide. Corroborative testimony is not necessary if the single witness's testimony is credible.

  • Section 3(a)(C) of RA No. 9262 defines psychological violence as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim, such as intimidation, harassment, and stalking. Other forms of violence, such as physical, sexual, and economic violence, are addressed and penalized in other sub-parts of Section 5.

  • Denial and alibi are weak defenses in a criminal case and cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.

  • Alibi can only succeed if the accused proves that he could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity.

  • The testimony of a doctor expressing uncertainty as to the cause of a certain injury or condition does not necessarily exculpate the accused.

  • The physical injuries suffered by the victim are not necessary elements of the crime of violence against women and their children under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 unless they lead to mental or emotional anguish.

  • The fact of pregnancy of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime is an aggravating circumstance and must be alleged and proven for the proper imposition of penalty. The alleged miscarriage or incomplete abortion is not essential to establishing the elements of the crime.

  • The aggravating circumstance of the victim's pregnancy can be considered in the determination of the penalty for the crime under RA 9262 and Article 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in determining the minimum and maximum penalties to be imposed on the accused.

  • The penalty imposed should be greater when the act committed by the accused in a certain case is of greater ignominy compared to another case involving the same offense.