View full case

JESTER MABUNOT v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Jester Mabunot (petitioner) filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming but modifying the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Petitioner was convicted of violating R.A. No. 7610 for physically abusing a minor named Shiva Baguiwan. The incident occurred at the Paracelis National High School, where petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, physically assaulted several classmates, including Shiva. The prosecution presented evidence showing that petitioner boxed Shiva, causing her to lose consciousness and sustain a fractured rib. The defense argued that petitioner was provoked by a classmate and that Shiva was accidentally injured when she intervened. Initially, the RTC found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered payment of temperate damages to Shiva.

On appeal, petitioner argued that the injury to Shiva was unintentional and that a different provision of the law should apply. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The CA found the defense witnesses not credible and inconsistent, while prosecution witnesses corroborated Shiva's claim. The court ruled that petitioner's actions constituted child abuse under R.A. No. 7610, which defines child abuse as any act that inflicts physical harm or punishment on a child.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the injury inflicted on Shiva was intentional and deliberate.

  2. Whether or not the higher penalty provided for under Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610 should be applied, instead of Article 265 of the RPC for slight physical injuries.

  3. Whether the petitioner can be acquitted on the ground of lack of intent to harm Shiva.

  4. Whether the acts complained of fall under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. No. 7610).

  5. Whether the penalties imposed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are correct.

  6. What is the proper penalty to be imposed on the petitioner for the crime committed?

  7. What is the proper minimum indeterminate penalty to be imposed on the petitioner?

  8. Is the award of actual damages proper?

RULING:

  1. The Court affirms the conviction and the sentence, but imposes interest on the amount of actual damages awarded by the CA.

  2. On the propriety of the petitioner's conviction:

  3. The Court held that a review of facts and evidence is not within the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. In this case, the RTC and the CA both accorded probative value to the testimonies of two eyewitnesses who positively identified the petitioner as the one who had boxed Shiva. The defense failed to impute and prove any ill motives on the part of the eyewitnesses, and the defense witnesses failed to sufficiently refute the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

  4. The argument that the petitioner deserves acquittal due to lack of intent to harm Shiva is untenable. Even if the petitioner did not intend to harm Shiva specifically, his act of swinging his arms with the intention to injure someone is enough to establish criminal intent. The petitioner cannot escape liability for his error.

  5. The acts complained of fall under Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610, which punishes physical abuse of a child. R.A. No. 7610 provides special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, and discrimination. Physical abuse of a child is inherently wrong and criminal intent is not wanting in cases of child abuse.

  6. The penalties imposed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are correct. The Indeterminate Sentence Law (IS Law) applies to the penalty for violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610. The maximum imposable penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The IS Law applies even when a special law adopts penalties from the RPC.

  7. The proper penalty to be imposed on the petitioner for the crime committed is six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor.

  8. The proper minimum indeterminate penalty to be imposed on the petitioner is four (4) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional.

  9. The award of actual damages is proper, but it should be subject to an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the resolution until it is fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Court, in certiorari proceedings, does not re-examine conflicting evidence or re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses. (Villareal v. Aliga)

  • A review of facts and evidence is beyond the scope of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. (Villareal v. Aliga)

  • The penalty for a crime should be determined based on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The minimum indeterminate penalty should be within the range of the prescribed penalty for the offense, which is the per next lower to that prescribed.

  • The award of actual damages can be subject to an interest to conform with recent jurisprudence.