Velasco y De Leon v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 255490. June 30, 2021.]

RONILO VELASCO y DE LEON, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 255490 (Ronilo Velasco y De Leon v. People of the Philippines). —

Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in this Appeal 1 against the June 29, 2020 Decision 2 and January 27, 2021 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42230, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure of Ronilo Velasco y De Leon (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Petitioner was charged with serious physical injuries under Article 263, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information 4 reads:

That on or about the 3rd day of December 2013, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, conspiring and confederating, both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one Leonardo Morales y Tuyor by hitting bottle (sic) on the head and punching on the face, thereby inflicting upon the latter injuries which require medical attendance for a period of more than thirty (30) days and incapacitated him from performing his customary labor for the same period of time.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

The CA had correctly affirmed the findings of the trial court that the prosecution was able to establish that the injuries suffered by the victim required medical attendance and had incapacitated him for a period of not less than thirty-one (31) days. In his testimony, the attending physician, Dr. Teresita R. Sanchez (Dr. Sanchez), gave a detailed description of the injuries that the victim suffered and the corresponding amount of time he needed to rest and heal from such injuries. Notably, the Medico-Legal Report 6 specifically indicated that "under normal conditions without subsequent complication and/or deeper involvement present, but not clinically apparent at the time of examination, the above described physical injuries will require medical attendance or will incapacitate the victim for a period of not less than 31 days x x x." 7 Dr. Sanchez even clarified her findings that since the injury was in the head, it will definitely need more than a month or at least thirty-one (31) days of medical attendance. As such, petitioner should be held guilty of serious physical injuries under Art. 263, par. 4 of the RPC.

Since petitioner was found guilty of an offense resulting in physical injuries, moral damages should likewise be awarded. Under paragraph (1), Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. Moral damages compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim and his family as being a proximate result of the wrongful act. 8 An award requires no proof of pecuniary loss. Pursuant to previous jurisprudence, an award of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as moral damages is appropriate. 9

The victim is likewise entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P10,000.00, as it is clear from the records that the victim received medical treatment, although no documentary evidence was presented to prove the cost thereof. 10

As to the penalty, par. 4 of Art. 263 of the RPC provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed, if the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken, in view of the attending circumstances that could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC; and the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC. 11

In the absence of any modifying circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence in this case, shall be taken within the medium period of the penalty prescribed under Article 263, par. 4, or one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. The minimum term shall be taken within the range of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods or from one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. 12 Hence, the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of three (3) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as maximum shall be imposed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The June 29, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42230 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Petitioner Ronilo Velasco y De Leon is found GUILTY of Serious Physical Injuries under Article 263, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. He is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of three (3) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as maximum. Further, he is ORDERED to PAY private complainant Leonardo Morales y Tuyor moral damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) and temperate damages in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), all of which shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 20-64; via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2.Id. at 73-84; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong, concurring.

3.Id. at 86-88.

4.Id. at 163-164.

5.Id. at 163.

6.Id. at 168.

7.Id.; italics supplied.

8.Yap v. People, G.R. No. 234217, November 14, 2018, 885 SCRA 599, 621.

9.Etino v. People, G.R. No. 206632, February 14, 2018, 855 SCRA 355, 362.

10.Id. at 363.

11.Id. at 374.

12.Id. at 375.