Extensively Judicious Memo of Appeal exposes mistakes of MeTC of Pasay, Branch 47
Extensively Judicious Memo of Appeal
exposes mistakes of MeTC of Pasay, Branch 47
As an exercise of press freedom and as an advocacy to help people understand the judicial processes in the country, as well as to promote Jury System that is the advocacy of this blogger, this copy of the Memorandum of Appeal taken against Branch 47 of Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City is being posted.
For all who have the tenacity to read long pleadings, to the fellow lawyers and to those who aspire to become lawyers, let me offer this Memorandum of Appeal for you to study on and to increase legal writing skills.
Republic of the
Philippines
NATIONAL
CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT
Pasay City
BRANCH
118
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
-versus- Crim. Case No.
M-PSY-09-08592-CR-R00-OO
[@
MeTc: Crim. Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR]
For
: Attempted Homicide
RAMIL
FUENTES, et. al.
Accused,
x---------------------------------------x
Memorandum of
Appeal
All the
accused, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully file this Memorandum of
Appeal from the Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch
47, dated 6 April 2015 and from its Order denying the Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration.
The
Positions of
the
Appellants-Accused
The first
position of the appellants-accused is that if ever there was conviction, only
accused Ramil R. Fuentes can be convicted and all the rest of the accused must
be acquitted for utter lack of evidence to support the allegations of the
private complainant.
The second
position of the appellants-accused is that if accused Fuentes were to be convicted,
it must only be SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, considering that he was confined only
in the hospital for four (4) days and there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt
showing that after four (4) days the private complainant was still
incapacitated to labor or was still necessarily being given medical attention.
The third
position of the appellants-accused is that if accused Fuentes were to be
considered, he should also get the benefit of self-defense or incomplete
self-defense.
The fourth
position of the appellants-accused is that after it turned out that the maximum
crime that could be had is only slight physical injuries, the case should have
been dismissed for the failure of the private complainant to pass through the lupon ng tagapamayapa of their barangay
considering that both the accused and the complainant lived in the same
barangay.
The fifth
position of the appellants-accused is that without the admission of accused
Ramil R. Fuentes, the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to support
the allegations of private complainant Mildfred P. Castro and his witnesses,
including Imelda F. Odrada.
And the
final position is that the COURT A QUO
erred terribly in arriving at a conclusion that all the appellants-accused are
guilty of physical injuries in the class that the injuries inflicted caused the
illness or incapacity for labor to more then thirty (30) days.
The
Discussions
On admission
The conviction
of all the accused is not correct for the crime of physical injuries.
This
admission of Ramil R. Fuentes can be found in the Transcript of Stenographic
Notes (TSNs) of his cross-examination testimonies dated 25 April 2011,
particularly Page 19 thereof.
On Page 19
of the 25 April 2011 TSN Fuentes said he had his medical examination of his
wounds that he incurred from the steel baton that was whipped on him by
complainant Mildfred P. Castro. As shown
by Exhibit “4”, the medical certificate of Fuentes, he was injured by a blunt
object on the parietal area of the head and on the front of his head. All these parts are just covering the brain.
For sure,
it is improbable for a punch to injure the frontal and parietal areas of the
head. So that if accused Ramil was
injured, it is reasonable to conclude that it was cause by the only instrument
that is undisputed to be present during the incident and that instrument was
that steel baton with steel ball at the tip.
Those
injuries on the frontal and parietal areas of the head of accused Ramil R.
Fuentes and the fact that Mildfred P. Castro had injuries on his ear
characterized by the tear on the cartilage are a proof beyond reasonable doubt
that only the two of them physically confronted with each other and the other
accused did not have any hand.
If
Mildfred P. Castro was confined for four (4) days at the hospital, it means
that his wounds were not caused by a punch or a cane but were consistent with
the shape and bluntness of the steel baton and the steel ball on the tip of the
baton.
It is
noticeable that other than the injuries on the nose of Mildfred P. Castro
caused by the punch of Fuentes on the nose, the injuries on his leg that was
caused by the kick of Fuentes, and the injuries on his chest caused by the
punch of Fuentes on the side portion, the other injuries were those consistent
to have been caused by the steel baton and steel ball at the tip thereof.
These
injuries support firmly the admission of Fuentes that he was the only one who
faced complainant Mildfred P. Castro and that the rest of the co-accused did
not in any way participate or did not hurt Mildfred P. Castro.
This is
also supported by the fact that the co-accused did not have any injury and did
not submit any medical certificate showing injuries.
This is
also supported by the fact that it is a presumption of life or natural habit of
life that no person will admit any criminal liability unless dictated by truth.
The
admission that he was the only one who faced Mildfred P. Castro is shown by the
following photograph of the TSN of the cross-examination of accused Fuentes on
25 April 2011.
It is
observed that the only prominent tool that was undisputed to have been used to
cause injuries was the steel baton and the steel ball on its tip.
If
anything, it can also be observed that accused Fuentes admitted having punched
Castro. Fuentes said he was compelled
to punch while Castro was attacking Fuentes with whips of the steel baton and
that the punch was meant to prevent Castro from closing in. These statements of Fuentes are logical to
happen under the experience of mankind doctrine.
Actually,
it is on record and established during the hearing at the court a quo
that it was accused Fuentes who surrendered the steel baton with steel ball at
the tip and the surrender was done by means of submitting the same steel baton to
the court a quo as Exhibit “5.” This means that Fuentes
was the last holder of the steel baton.
Considering the fact that Fuentes had injuries on the frontal and
parietal areas of his head and considering further that these injuries could
not be caused by punches, it is now reasonable to conclude that the same steel
baton was first in the hands of Mildfred P. Castro, for otherwise Fuentes could
have had no injuries on the frontal and parietal areas of his head. And it is also reasonable to conclude that
Fuentes merely grabbed the same steel baton from the possession of Mildfred P.
Castro.
The claim
of Mildred P. Castro that accused Querubin Hodreal used a cane in beating him
on his forearm cannot merit any belief.
It is
because the normal habit of life dictates that one who uses a cane has
imbalance problem or is sick and that the same person cannot use the cane to
smash it on another person because the act of smashing removes the only tool
for balancing and the act of smashing require force that will be sufficient to
make the cane-user fall.
Now, the
claim of Mildfred P. Castro that accused Ronnie Frias punched him on the left
of his head cannot be supported by his own medical certificate that states that
the injuries on the left part of the head was actually a torn ligament of the
ear.
Further,
Frias as the accused always gets the benefit of the doubt here.
And
finally accused Dacio, as a woman, is impossible to be an aggressor against a
tall man in the person of Mildfred P. Castro.
A woman is
always presumed to be physically weak unless the contrary circumstance, like
being an extraordinary woman, is shown.
As it
appeared from Castro’s own testimonies, he did not speak of any physical
participation of Dacio. In fact, Castro admitted in his testimonies
that Dacio did not have any participation except for shouting at him.
Dacio did
not punch Castro because Castro never said so.
Dacio never kicked Castro because Castro never said so. Dacio never used any beating stick or wood
plank because Castro never said so.
Now, if
the incredible story of Mildfred P. Castro is to be followed that
simultaneously he was being punched by accused Frias and accused Fuentes, it is
impossible to happen that Hodreal could still smash on him a cane.
If Hodreal
will still smash Castro with a cane, chances were he cannot hit Castro but hit
Frias who according to Castro was punching on his left side or hit Fuentes who
according to Castro was punching on his front.
How can a
person with disability in standing be able to smash the cane he used when there
was a need to sway back first the cane to get the momentum (buwelo) before
smashing the same? Clearly then, the
stories of Mildred P. Castro is difficult to be believe in.
Let the
admission of accused Fuentes be examined.
On Page 19 of his 25 April 2011 cross-examination testimonies, Fuentes
as the witness said:
From the
part of the TSN above, it is distinctive that the private prosecutor of Mildred
P. Castro stated that Fuentes caused the correction of some portions of his
counter-affidavit specifically Paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 thereof, and the
purpose was to show that the fight was only between Castro and Fuentes.
The only
question of the private prosecutor is that why it was only during the trial at
the MeTC of Pasay, Branch 47, that the corrections were made.
And this
fact that it was only during the trial at the court a quo that the corrections were made did not mean that the
corrections were false.
This admission
should have been enough to acquit all the accused except for Ramil R. Fuentes.
That act of admitting is a courageous
act. It went with penal sanctions that Fuentes was
aware that he had to be imprisoned with the admission. Yet accused Fuentes admitted that he was the
only one who had caused Mildred P. Castro those injuries.
That admission must be more powerful
than any statement from the private complainant insisting that it was not only
Fuentes but all the accused inflicted harm on him.
It is unfortunate that the presiding
judge who convicted all the accused was not yet the judge when Fuentes made
those admissions. So that, actually, the conclusions of the
presiding judge of the court a quo
cannot carry any weight of the presumption as to the judgment call on whether a
witness was telling the truth or not.
Supporting this admission are the very
testimonies of Mildfred P. Castro in his direct and cross-examinations.
In essence, these direct testimonies
of Castro show the following statements of his that are material and relevant
to the issue of whether or not all co-accused of Fuentes did not commit any act
of injuring Castro or did not conspire with Fuentes to cause injuries on Castro
and that it was Castro who had the motive of causing harm on all the accused
because of the rivalry in the leadership issue in the homeowners association of
Central Park Condominiums, to wit:
(1)
From his direct
testimony, Mildfred P. Castro stated that he was living at Building 2 of the
Central Park Condominiums by saying that he was residing at Central Park
Condominium 2;
(2)
From his direct
testimony, Mildfred P. Castro stated that about 10:30 a.m. of 29 September 2008
Castro went out of the unit where he was staying, which was Unit 1230 Central
Park Condominium II, and he proceeded to the lobby of Building 1 of the same
condominiums;
(3)
All the four
accused (Fuentes, Frias, Dacio and Hodreal) were at the lobby of the Building 1
of the same condominiums – this means that Fuentes, Frias, Dacio and Hodreal
did not have any motive to hurt Mildfred P. Castro, otherwise Fuentes,
Frias, Dacio and Hodreal instead went to the unit of Mildfred P. Castro and
hurt him there;
(4)
In his direct
testimonies, Mildfred P. Castro stated that he and his group are the officers
of the homeowners association of Central Park Condominiums Homeowners
Association, Inc. and that he even identified the two minutes of the meetings
where Castro and others were elected as officers and he was elected further to
be the chairman and CEO;
(5)
In the same
direct testimonies, Mildfred P. Castro identified all the accused as residents
of Building 1 of the Central Park Condominiums and all the accused were
claiming to be directors as well of the condominium association – confirming
the existence of the rivalry between the group of Mildfred P. Castro and the
group of the accused;
(6)
In the same
direct testimonies, Mildfred P. Castro stated that there was the inspection of
the City Engineers’ Office of Pasay City to be conducted into the buildings of
Central Park Condominiums and he said that because of this he went to the lobby
of Building 1 of the condominiums;
(7)
Mildfred P.
Castro said that when he arrived at the lobby of Building 1, he did not
immediately confront the accused that instead he went upstairs to see his
allies in their group in this leadership issue;
(8)
Mildfred P.
Castro never said he was attacked by any of the accused from the time of
Castro’s arrival at the lobby, to the time that Castro went up to look for his
companion, and to the time Castro went down, not one accused confronted him and
this circumstance means the accused did not have any motive to assault
Mildfred P. Castro; and
(9)
It is very clear
that the physical confrontation occurred only after the start of the exchange
of hate words – which facts cannot be read in the TSN for the direct testimonies
of Mildfred P. Castro but can be read in his Complaint-Affidavit that he marked
as a series of Exhibit “A”.
By combining
all these relevant statements of Mildfred P. Castro, it tacitly confirmed the
existence of the motive of jealousy on the part of Mildfred P. Castro.
These also
confirmed the ultimate fact that not one of the accused was interested in
assaulting him. This is because the
physical confrontation occurred only after Mildfred P. Castro confronted the
accused talking to City Engineers.
With these
facts established, it is now reasonable to conclude an ultimate fact that it is
improbable to happen that the accused was the first to lay hand or
assault with a punch. Rather, it is
more reasonable to conclude that it was Mildfred P. Castro who drew the first
blood.
This
conclusion is supported by the fact that Fuentes had injuries on the frontal
and parietal areas of his head and these injuries cannot be caused by mere
punches. And if Fuentes was injured on
these spots, it was caused no less than by the steel baton with steel ball at
the tip. And the fact that it was
Fuentes who surrendered the steel baton to the court during his testimonies
confirms the truth of the allegation of Fuentes that he merely grabbed from
Mildfred P. Castro the same steel baton with steel ball at the tip thereof.
So that
when it is now established by reasonable inference from the given statements of
Mildfred P. Castro that it was Mildfred P. Castro who laid the first assault,
it cannot now be said that Frias was the one who made the first physical
assault with a punch on the left of Castro’s head. Rather, this is a clear show that Castro was
lying when he said Frias was the first among the accused to have assaulted him.
Until
here, it is shown clearly that the MeTC of Pasay, Branch 47, presiding judge
did not have anything to support his conclusion that all the accused made
physical assault against Mildfred P. Castro.
To support
the foregoing discussions and statements above, the bases therefor is the direct-examination
of Mildfred P. Castro, in toto:
Q. Mr.
Castro, are you the same Mildfred Castro, the private complainant In this case?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Where
do you live?
A. Unit
1230 Central Park Condominium II George st. Pasay City, sir.
Q. Since
when have you been living there?
A. Since
2006, sir.
Q. Do
you remember having executed a complaint affidavit with respect to this case
before the prosecutor’s office?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. I’m
showing to you a complaint affidavit marked as Exhibit “A” during the Pre-trial
(Counsel handed the same to the witness). Will you go over this And tell us if
this is the complaint affidavit you are referring to?
A. Yes,
sir.
Atty. Sabarre interrupted:
Your Honor, can I go over the records and see if that is the same
complaint Affidavit (Defense counsel referring to the record)
Court: Next
question, Atty. Machica.
Atty. Machica to the Witness:
Q. Do
you know a certain association by the name of Central Park Condominium
Homeowners Association Incorporated?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
is this association all about?
A. The
association of the unit owners and tenants of Central Park, sir.
Q. Are
you a member of this association?
A. Yes,
sir. Not only a member but CEO and
Chairman.
Q. What
is your basis in saying that you are a CEO and Chairman of Central Park
Condominium Association?
A. I
have two minutes of board meetings, one is electing me as director and the
other one is electing me as CEO and Chairman, sir.
Q. I’m
showing you a minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of the
association dated May 24, 2008 (Counsel handed the same to the Witness) will
you go over this document and tell us if this is the minutes of the election as
director of the condominium association?
A. Yes,
sir. This is the minutes electing me as one of the directors.
Court:
You
want to mark it?
Atty. Machica: We would like to mark a photocopy of the minutes, your
Honor, after comparison by the counsel for the accused (Private Prosecutor
handed the same to the defense counsel). As our Exhibit “B,” your Honor.
Court: Mark
it as Exhibit “B”
Inter: You
have provisional marking Exhibit “B” the medical certificate…
Atty. Machica: “Iuurong naming”
Court interrupted: No, no you just mark it after the last
exhibit.
Inter: So,
mark it “C” (Marking the same)
Atty. Machica to the Witness:
Q. I have here another minutes of the
meeting dated May 24, 2008, this time about the election of the officer of the
association (Counsel handed the same to the witness). Will you go over this and
tell us if this is the minutes of the meeting reflecting your election as CEO
and Chairman?
A. This
is the minutes electing me as CEO and Chairman, sir.
Atty. Machica: We also like to have it marked, your Honor, after
comparison with the Photocopy (Private prosecutor handed the same to the
defense counsel). The photocopy be marked as our Exhibit “D.”
Court: Marked
it.
Inter: (Marking
the same)
Atty. Machica to the witness:
Q. Do
you know one of the accused in this case by the name of Querubin Benjie Hodreal
Jr.?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Why
do you know him?
A. He
is one of the residents in Central Park I and claiming to be one of the directors
and officers of the association and he is the one who attacked me, sir.
Atty. Sabarre interrupted:
Your Honor, please would like to remind the witness that he would
and only answer the question, not to narrate, your honor.
Court: As
prayed for by the defense counsel, you should not answer in a narrative form.
Atty. Machica to the witness:
Q. Will
you be able to tell us if this Mr. Hodreal is present in this court?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Will
you kindly point to him?
A. Yes,
sir (witness pointed to a person who were ask by the court stood up And answer
by the name of Querubin Hodreal Jr.)
Q. How
about this accused Tish Dacio, do you know this person?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And
why do you know him?
A. He is also a resident of Central Park
I and also claims to be one of the Directors of the association, sir.
Q. If
she is present in this court now, will you kindly point to her?
A. Yes sir, (Witness pointed to a person
who when asked by the court, she stood up and answered by the name Tish Dacio).
Q. How
about the accused Ramil Fuentes, do you know this person?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Why
do you know him?
A. He
is also a resident of Central Park, sir.
Q. Will
you be able to point to him, if he is present in this court?
A. Yes sir, (Witness pointed to a person
who when asked by the court stood up and answered by the name Ramil Fuentes).
Q. And
this accused Ronnie Frias , do you know this person?
A. Yes
sir.
Q. And
why do you know him?
A. He
is also a resident of Central Park sir.
Q. Can
you point to him if he is in court right now?
A. Yes
sir, (Witness pointed to a person who when asked by the court stood Up and
answered by the name of Ronnie Frias).
Q. Will
you kindly tell us, where were you and what are doing on September 29, 2008 at
around 10:30 in the morning?
A. I
went to Central Park lobby I and I was looking for the officers of the
Association, sir.
Q. Why
were you looking for the officers of the association?
A. Two
days before the incident, we had a meeting with mayor Trinidad, sir.
Atty. Sabarre interrupted:
Objection, your Honor, we would
like that the answer be stricken off because it is not responsive to the
question.
Court: Any
comment Atty. Machica?
Atty. Machica: May I recall the question, your Honor.
Court: Proceed.
Atty. Machica to the Witness:
Q. Why
do you have to meet the officers of the association of Central Park?
A. To meet and welcome the team coming from
the City Engineering’s Office sent by Mayor Peewee Trinidad for Central Park
Inspection, sir.
Court to the Witness:
Q. What
happened next?
A. I
noticed at the hallway, there were lots of people and there’s a commotion, your
Honor.
Atty. Machica to the Witness:
Q. What
did you do after noticing those people having a commotion?
A. Initially, I ask the OIC security of
what’s happening, sir.
Q. And what was the response?
A. And
he answered that they are from the City Engineering’s Office, sir.
Q. So,
were you able to formally meet this City Engineering’s Office Officials?
A. Because
there were lots of people, I avoided the people and I went to the Second
floor….
Court interrupted:
Before you answer that, why was there a commotion, if you know?
Witness: For what I knew they are looking for my team and Mel
Odrada, the President of our association, your Honor.
Court: Go
on.
Atty. Machica:
Q. I
think he was interrupted with my question.
Atty. Machica to the witness:
Q. So,
were you able to formally meet this officers from the city Engineering’s
Office?
No sir, because I have avoided the
people, so I immediately went to second floor because there are lots of people
already.
Now, to see the incoherence and
illogical statements made by Mildfred P. Castro regarding how the mauling
occurred, the testimonies of Castro are hereby presented, to wit:
Atty. Machica to the witness (Mildfred P. Castro):
Q: On
Paragraph 7 of your affidavit, you mentioned that Ramil Fuentes shouted at you
and you answered back “Hindi ako Nakikialam,
Hindi ako Interesado d’yan.” Will you tell us what happened after that?
A. After
I transferred my attention to the person who was standing in the adjacent hallway,
sir.
Q. What
happened after you transferred your attention to that person?
A. I
tried to talk to that person but I wasn’t able (to do so) because suddenly a
person punched me hitting my left side of my head, sir.
Q. And
who is this person?
A. Mr. Ronnie Frias, sir.
Q. And
can you recall how many times Ronnie Frias hit you?
A. I could not remember because I was
punched more than twice at the same spot, Sir.
Q. How
about Ramil Fuentes who earlier shouted at you, what did he do at that time?
A. After Ronnie Frias punched me several
times, Ramil Fuentes joined him, sir.
Q. So,
what did you do when these two persons are now simultaneously mauling You?
Court interrupted:
You have no objection with the terms mauling?
Atty. Sabarre:
Yes your Honor.
Court: What is the participation of the accused Ramil Fuentes?
Witness: He joined Ronnie Frias in punching me, your Honor.
Atty. Machica to the witness:
Q. Did
they stop punching you?
Atty. Sabarre interrupted:
Objection your Honor. Leading,
your Honor.
Court:
Reform your question.
Atty. Machica to the witness:
Q. When did they stop punching you?
A. At the time , they did not stop , sir.
Q. Why?
A. When I tried to shield their punches,
I also tried to evade them by stepping backward because the hallway is too
narrow, sir.
Only slight
physical injuries
If at all,
the conviction should only be for a crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES.
And it is
stressed that even if the case should only be slight physical injuries, it is
only accused Ramil R. Fuentes who can be convicted.
It is
undisputed that private complainant Mildfred P. Castro was confined only for four
(4) days in the hospital as it was written in his medical certificate.
But after
Castro went out of the hospital, it is doubtful if he still had sickness or he
was incapacitated to labor on the fifth (5th) day, sixth (6th) day, seventh (7th)
day or eighth (8th) day, and so forth.
In fact,
neither Castro nor his doctor testified that he still had sickness or was still
incapacitated to labor on the sixth (6th) day.
While it
may be true that the doctor testified that she required Castro to take a rest
of thirty (30) days, to rest does not mean to say he was ill or was
incapacitated to do work.
The
transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs) of the doctor’s testimonies do not show
any statement that the doctor explicitly stated that the word “rest” really
meant that the private complainant was ill or incapacitated to labor for the
period of thirty (30) days that he should rest.
In fact,
the private complainant physically walked and presumably took a ride in going
to the Office of the City Prosecutor to file his complaint for attempted
homicide. The stamp “received” on the
Complaint showed that it was filed on the fifteen (15) day after the alleged
mauling incident. That means, if he
swore before the administering officer, he must have been in good health
condition.
If on the
fifteenth (15th) day Mildfred P. Castro came out of the condominium
unit where he lived and went to the Office of the City Prosecutor to file his
complaint against all the accused, that fact constituted sufficient doubt as to
whether or not on that day the private complainant was ill or was incapacitated
to labor.
Moreover,
the doctor who testified for the private complainant did not testify that an
advice to rest also meant that the private complainant was ill or incapacitated
to labor during those days that Mildfred P. Castro was to take rest.
THESE
FACTS should be sufficient to constitute REASONABLE DOUBT on the issue of
whether Mildfred P. Castro was ill or incapacitated to labor for thirty (30)
days.
And
because the actual confinement of the private complainant was only four (4)
days at the hospital, it meant that ONLY the four (4) days that he was confined
at the hospital are the days that can be considered as him being ill or
incapacitated to labor.
If indeed
the accused were proved to have caused those injuries, it is now undisputed that
there was reasonable doubt whether the private complainant was ill or was
incapacitated to labor for more than nine (9) days.
Accordingly,
the doctrine of in dubio pro reo applies here with vigor to favor the accused.
Further, the
law, Article 263, Paragraph 4, says:
4.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the
injured person for more than thirty days.
The law
does not say of the number of days of “medical attention” as the basis to
designate the offense as to what type of physical injuries.
What the
law says is “shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured
person for more than thirty days.”
There is
no room for vagueness in criminal law.
And when
there is doubt, as in the case at bar, again, the same shall be resolved in
favor of the accused.
To stress,
what is found by the court is that private complainant Mildfred Castro was
hospitalized only for four (4) days.
Because of
the big doubt, these four (4) days are the only number of days that can be said
that the private complainant was incapacitated to labor.
Further,
there is no proof presented that Mildfred P. Castro was also incapacitated to
labor after he was released from the hospital.
Because
there is no proof and because there is this certification by the doctor that
the private complainant needed thirty (30) days of medical attention, the
totality of the circumstance does not evoke a conclusion beyond reasonable
doubt that the private complainant was incapacitated to labor for more than
five (5) days or for thirty-one (31) days.
Ergo, applying
strictly the law, the only offense that the accused can be convicted is SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES.
The law on
slight physical injuries under Article 266 reads:
Art.
266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical
injuries shall be punished:
1.
By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party
for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance
during the same period.
2.
By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure when the offender
has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from
engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance.
3.
By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when
the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.
On self-defense
or
incomplete self
defense
And if the
aspect of self-defense is factored in as commanded by the Revised Penal Code,
even accused Fuentes has to be acquitted.
But if he
will be credited only with incomplete self-defense, the penalty will be watered
down. And if the mitigating circumstance
of admission of guilt, the same penalties shall be subject further to reduction,
depending on the applicability thereof.
And were
it not for the admission of Ramil R. Fuentes that he was the only accused who
have caused injuries and that his co-accused did not inflict any harm on
private complainant Mildfred P. Castro, the prosecution has no evidence
sufficient to support the vague, dubious and unsupported narration of stories made
by Castro.
As
discussed above, it has been established that Mildfred P. Castro was the
aggressor and he assaulted Fuentes with a steel baton having steel ball at the
tip thereof.
The
establishment that it was Castro who was the aggressor came after it has been
established that: (a) no accused except for Ramil Fuentes incurred injuries;
(b) the injuries incurred by accused Fuentes are caused by heavy blunt objects
on the frontal and parietal areas of the head; (c) these types of injuries
cannot be caused by any punch and the same wounds are most possible to be
consistent with the wounds that can be cause by the steel ball at that tip of
the metal baton; (d) the last holder of the metal baton was accused Ramil R.
Fuentes and he surrendered the same to the court a quo as Exhibit “5”; and (e) Mildfred P. Castro had injuries on
the nose, the left part of the chest and the leg.
The logic
is that if Fuentes incurred injuries that are consistent with the possible kind
of wounds that could be caused by the steel ball at the tip of the retractable
steel baton, it means that it was not him who had the initial hold over the
baton. And if no other person had
injuries but Mildfred P. Castro, it means that he was the one who had the physical
confrontation with Fuentes. And if
Fuentes was the one who surrendered the steel baton with steel ball, then it
follows that that Fuentes only grabbed the same from Mildfred P. Castro.
And if it
was established that Fuentes merely grabbed the steel baton from Mildfred P.
Castro, then Fuentes was reasonably telling the truth when he said that as he
picked up the steel baton from the floor that was the time that Mildfred P.
Castro was hit on the ear cause his lobe or ligament to be torn.
From the
undisputed facts that the accused did not seek Mildfred P. Castro but that it
was Castro who sought the accused at the lobby of Building 1 of Central Park
Condominiums, and the further fact that Fuentes incurred injuries on the
frontal and parietal areas of his head where the injuries cannot be caused by
punches but consisted with the steel ball, it is reasonable to conclude that it
was Mildfred P. Castro who was the aggressor and the one who started the
physical fight.
Faced with
the circumstance where accused Ramil was being assaulted with a steel baton
with steel ball on the tip, what should Fuentes do? Shall he run away? He cannot run because at his back and sides
were full of people gathered there at the lobby because of the presence of the
city engineers and the residents of Building 1 of condominium.
So that
there was no other way for Ramil R. Fuentes to save his self but to punch
Mildfred P. Castro and wrestle away the steel baton.
Consequently,
it can now be reasonably established that accused Ramil Fuentes was justified
in using his punches to defend himself from the aggressor
And it is also undisputed that there
was no provocation on the part of Ramil R. Fuentes.
The elements of a complete self
defense are: (a) Unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.
Here, it is beyond question that it
has been established that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Mildfred
P. Castro. Aside from the discussions
above, what further proved that Mildfred P. Castro was the aggressor is the
statement of his own witness Imelda Odrada.
If there
was one statement that could be believed in Imelda’s statement, it was that when she said that the security guards
prevented Mildred P. Castro during the commotion. It means that whoever if it was Castro who
was being prevented by the security guards, it means that Castro was the
attacker and not any of the accused.
This means
that Mildfred P. Castro was the attacker and not the accused. Otherwise, the security guards could have
prevented the accused.
In punching Mildfred P. Castro, that
act of punching was also a reasonable necessity of the means employed by Ramil
Fuentes to stop the aggression because there was no way for Fuentes to run
away.
It is also undisputed that there was
no sufficient provocation on the part of Ramil Fuentes.
It could
be said otherwise. The first proof of
self-defense is the fact that the accused were all just there present where the
inspection was to be done.
The second
proof is that the incident did not start when the private complainant did not
arrive at the inspection area.
The third
proof is that when the private complainant left, the accused did not pursue or
chase him to inflict more harm on him.
The fourth proof is that the inspection by engineers continued as proved
by the minutes of inspection.
Ergo, the justifying circumstance of
self-defense is complete and undisputedly established.
Now, even if the self-defense is
incomplete, the same is sufficient to reduce by two degrees the penalties.
And if the mitigating circumstance of
admission of the crime is added, the penalty will be reduced further.
Lupon
tagapamayapa
Now that
it has been established that the maximum crime that can be had is slight
physical injuries and that the accused and the accuser resided in the same
barangay, they were obliged to pass through the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of the barangay.
The law on
lupon does not distinguish whether the application shall be before the filing
of the case before the Office of the Prosecutor or after the court found out
that the offense is covered by the Lupon
ng Tagapamayapa.
So that if
the Court concludes after the trial that the case is covered by the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa, the court should
have not promulgated a decision but refer first the matter to the barangay.
In this
case, it is very clear that the offense is covered by the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa law.
The law
must be complied with by the courts.
Prosecution did
not
have evidence to
convict the accused
The fifth
position of the appellants-accused is that without the admission of accused
Ramil R. Fuentes, the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to support
the allegations of private complainant Mildfred P. Castro and his witnesses,
including Imelda F. Odrada.
As discussed above, the testimonies of
Mildfred P. Castro were not supported with evidence in order to support his
claims that indeed all the accused were guilty.
So that in this discussion, the
discussions about the testimonies of Mildfred P. Castro under the sub-title “On
Admission” are hereto adopted.
And in addition thereto, the
testimonies of witness Imelda Odrada are being discussed.
With due
respect, it is erroneous for the Honorable Court to declare that witness Imelda
Odrada is believable upon the reason that she was an incumbent officer.
The
conclusion that Imelda Odrada was an incumbent officer is not supported by
documents. The alleged two minutes of
meeting of her group including Mildfred P. Castro do not suffice to prove that
Odrada was indeed a legitimate member or officer of the homeowners.
In the
face of the truth that the accused presented HLURB documents proving that the
accused were the legitimate officers of the homeowners association of Central
Park Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc. (CPCHAI), Mildfred P. Castro and
Odrada must have filed documents to prove their legitimacy as homeowners
association officers.
So that it
is very clear, Imelda Odrada cannot be a credible witness.
The
documentary evidence submitted by the accused, the letter from the Housing Land
Use and Regulatory Board (HLURB), the letter from the City Engineer’s Office,
the minutes of the engineering inspection, the fact that the engineering
inspection went on without the private complainant, the fact that the group of
Imelda Odrada did not submit any document coming from the HLURB and that their
alleged minutes of the meeting was not even submitted, all these combined for a
totality of circumstances to prove that all the accused were the legitimate
officers of Central Park Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. (CPCHAI).
Moreover,
the inconsistencies of the testimonies of Imelda Odrada and their
inconsistencies against her affidavit are more than glaring to make her an
incredible witness.
If there
was one statement that could be believed in Imelda’s statement, it was that when she said that the security guards
prevented Mildred P. Castro.
This means
that Mildfred P. Castro was the attacker and not the accused. Otherwise, the security guards could have
prevented the accused.
One thing
more, Judge Glenn Santos was not yet the judge when Imelda Odrada
testified. It was then acting Judge
Eliza Yu who was the judge. So that the
new judge cannot avail of the doctrine that his judgment call as to a witness
is telling the truth or not cannot be accepted. It was only Judge Yu who could say so. In his case, Judge Santos’ basis is only a
transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) where the emotions and the manner of the
delivery of the testimonies cannot be seen.
More so,
the fact that Imelda Odrada falsified that she was an incumbent officer of
CPCHAI or that she did not support her claims with documents from the HLURB
when the documents are easy to be secured from the HLURB discredited her credibility
all the more.
How could
Imelda Odrada be believed in if she falsified the basis of her claim that she
was an officer so that the Court would grant her the weight of truth to say
that she must be telling the truth because she was an incumbent officer?
As a
review, the testimonies of Mildfred P. Odrada are hereby reviewed.
Except for
the finding by the Honorable Court that there was no intention to kill, the
Court erred in giving credit to the claims of Castro about how he was injured,
who injured him, and how the incident began.
First, the
Honorable Judge Santos was not yet the judge when Castro testified. So that he did not see how Castro testified,
comported and stammered during his testimonies.
Moreover,
the Honorable Judge must have noted the admission of Castro that it was him
instead of the accused who was prevented by the security guard. This means that he was the attacker.
The fact
that it was not established by Castro that he was a legitimate officer of
CPCHAI because they did not submit sufficient documents to prove such and
because the owner of the unit where he resided was stipulated upon that no
authority was given to Castro to represent the condo owner to CPCHAI, Castro
cannot claim to have a right to be there when Pasay City Engineer’s men were to
inspect the condominium.
And
because it is reasonable to conclude that he had no right to be there at the
inspection of the condominium, this circumstance now support very well the
contention of the accused that Castro brought with him that retractable steel
baton and assaulted the accused.
With this,
the claims of Castro that Ronnie Frias was the first to punch him in the head
and that all the other accused joined the fray cannot now be believed in. This is very clear.
In fact,
if the testimonies of Castro are examined closely, his claims about where he
was hit in the parts of his body did not match the kind and position of the
injuries listed in the medical certificate.
The
Prayer
WHEREFORE, it
is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to REVERSE the court a quo’s
decision and order denying the motion for reconsideration.
Other
reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for. 18 January 2016. Manila for Pasay City.
Causing Sabarre Castro pELAGIO
Unit 1, No.
2368 J.B. Roxas Street corner Leon Guinto Street, Malate, Manila
By:
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, CE
IBP No. 972694/ 04-12-2015
/ Manila IV
PTR No. 4889732 / 04-12-2015
/ Manila
Roll No.
60944/MCLE No. IV – 0007338 issued 10 August 2012
Cc:
OFFICE OF CITY PROSECUTOR
Hall
of Justice, Pasay City
ATTY. DAVE O. MACHICA –
Private Prosecutor
8th
Floor, Sagittarius Bldg., HV dela Costa St
EXPLANATION
Copies were served on the parties and
filed by registered mails due to lack of personnel and lack of time.
BERTENI
CATALUÑA CAUSING
Comments