FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226740. February 20, 2019.]
DANILO O. CHUA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 20, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226740 (DANILO O. CHUA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent) — The Court DENIES this petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 20, 2015, for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the decision 2 rendered on May 17, 2012 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro City, finding the petitioner guilty of violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262 or the Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004.
The CA ruled in the assailed decision that the acts committed by the petitioner fall under the term "physical violence" as punished by R.A. No. 9262, and that there is sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's conviction.
The Court agrees.
R.A. No. 9262 defines "violence against women and their children" as —
(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;
xxx xxx xxx
In Dabalos v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City, (Pampanga), 3 the Court laid down the coverage of the law to: (1) it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offender's wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and (2) it results in, or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.
Pertinently, Section 5 enumerates the different acts of violence that are penalized by the law. This includes causing physical harm to the woman or her child.
In here we find that the State had sufficiently established the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the testimony of the private complainant, the respondent had physically abused her after she asked the reason why the statues of saints had to be removed. The Court notes that the complainant's allegations had been consistent with the findings indicated in the medical certificate submitted by the prosecution.
Finally, the Court rejects the respondent's claim that he merely shoved his wife and had no intention to cause her harm. Again, the medical certificate clearly showed that she had borne marks of his physical violence.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition; AFFIRMS the assailed rulings and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 119-127; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with the concurrence of Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, and Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles.
2.Id. at 71-75; penned by Presiding Judge Evelyn Gamotin Nery.
3. G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013, 688 SCRA 64, 69.