THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 191996. November 25, 2015.]
MANUEL T. ABELARDO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 25, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 191996 (Manuel T. Abelardo v. People of the Philippines). — In the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 dated May 11, 2010, petitioner Manuel T. Abelardo raises the issue that the Court of appeals (CA) committed grave error in affirming his conviction for the crime of less serious physical injuries because there was an absence of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that complainant was actually incapacitated for ten days or more or received medical attendance for the same period. He further claims that the CA erred in affirming his conviction for the crime of grave threats despite contrary evidence showing that the alleged utterance was done in the heat of anger and that the petitioner did not persist in the idea involved in the said utterance.
After a careful review of the records, this Court resolves to deny the petition for review for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing petitioner's appeal with the modification that the award for moral damages be deleted.
Factual findings of the lower courts must be accorded respect. The issues raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and are not the subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which only tackles questions of law. The well-entrenched rule is that only errors of law, and not of fact, are reviewable by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. It is not the Court's function under Rule 45 to review, examine and evaluate or weigh once again the probative value of the evidence presented. 1
There being no aggravating and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty for the crime of less serious physical injuries should be taken from the medium period of arresto mayor, which is from two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) months. In this case, the CA was correct in affirming the penalty imposed by the MeTC, later affirmed by the RTC, which is four (4) months of imprisonment as it is within the range of the imposable penalty. The Indeterminate Sentence Law finds no application in the case at bar, since it does not apply to those whose maximum term of imprisonment is less than one year. 2
As regards the award for damages, moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries, but there must be a factual basis for the award. 3We have studied the records and find no factual basis for the award of moral damages. Moreover, the CA, in its decision, did not provide any basis for such award.
As to the additional penalty of P500.00 fine in the case of Grave Threats, the CA was correct in doing so, as the penalty imposable for the crime of Grave Threats, under Article 282, par. 2 is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500.00.
Anent the deletion of the compensatory damages and the addition of temperate damages, the CA was correct because no competent proof on the specific amount of actual damages suffered was presented, hence, in lieu of actual damages, the complainant is awarded temperate damages in the amount of P2,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari udder Rule 45 dated May 11, 2010 of petitioner Manuel T. Abelardo is DENIED. Hence, the Decision dated December 4, 2009 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award for moral damages be deleted. (Jardeleza, J., on leave; Bersamin, J., Acting Member per Special Order No. 2289 dated November 16, 2015)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Lorenzo v. People, G.R. No. 152335, December 19, 2005, 478 SCRA 462, 469.
2. Engr. Carlito Pentecostes, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167766, April 7, 2010 citing People v. Glino, G.R. No. 173793, December 4, 2007, 539 SCRA 432, 461.
3. Civil Code, Art. 2219 (1); See Civil Code, Art. 2217; See People v. Molina, 391 Phil 282, 301 (2000).