THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243249. October 14, 2020.]
RENE FRANCIS CABALO y CABICO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 14, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243249 (Rene Francis Cabalo y Cabico,Petitioner,v. People of the Philippines,Respondent). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 1 dated 30 May 2018 and Resolution 2 dated 14 November 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39951, which affirmed the Decision 3 promulgated on 24 March 2017 by Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, finding petitioner Rene Francis Cabalo y Cabico (Cabalo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."
The RTC and the CA are correct in finding that all the elements for violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 are present in this case, i.e.:
(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child 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 access to the children or similar such acts or omissions. 4
Indeed, Cabalo and the offended party, AAA, 5 were married at the time of the complained incidents and their marital relationship was even stipulated during pre-trial conference. Further, the elements of mental and emotional anguish as a result of Cabalo's repeated verbal abuse, and denial of financial support were proven beyond moral certainty by clear and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 6
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight and respect, and generally not reviewable by this Court unless they fall within the recognized exceptions, 7 none of which obtain in this case. Contrary to Cabalo's assertions, the CA committed no misapprehension of facts when it agreed with the findings of the RTC. Hence, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the uniform factual findings of the CA and the RTC.
However, We find it appropriate to modify the penalty imposed. Section 6 of RA 9262 provides:
Section 6. Penalties. — The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following rules:
xxx xxx xxx
(l) Acts failing under Section 5(h) and Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor.
If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section.
In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.
In the recent Reyes v. People, 8 the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in determining the proper imposable penalty for violations of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262. The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional, or anywhere from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, while the maximum term shall be that which could be properly imposed under the law, which is eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime. 9 The Court deems it proper to impose upon Cabalo the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 May 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39951 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
1. Petitioner Rene Francis Cabalo y Cabico is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
2. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY a fine equivalent to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) plus costs; and
3. Further, petitioner is DIRECTED to UNDERGO mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment, and to report his compliance therewith to the court of origin within fifteen (15) days after the completion of such counselling or treatment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 35-48; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of the Court) and Elihu A. Ybañez of the Third Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2.Id. at 49-50.
3. CA rollo, pp. 37-44; penned by Presiding Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Tria.
4.Dinamling v. People, 761 Phil. 356, 373 (2015); G.R. No. 199522, 22 June 2015.
5. The real names of persons (other than the accused) and places or any other information tending to reveal the identity of the private complainant and those of her immediate family or household members are withheld in accordance with Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Sec. 44); A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective 15 November 2004, (Sec. 40); the case of People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 705-709 (2006); and per this Court's Resolution dated 19 September 2006 in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC.
6.Rollo, p. 43.
7.People v. Ramos, 715 Phil. 193, 208 (2013); G.R. No. 190340, 24 July 2013.
8. G.R. No. 232678, 03 July 2019.
9.Id.