7/8/2015 G.R.No.

192150

TodayisWednesday,July08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.192150October1,2014

FEDERICOSABAY,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.

DECISION

BRION,J.:

Wereviewinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari1thedecision2datedOctober23,2009andtheresolution3dated
March22,2010oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CRNo.31532.

The CA affirmed the April 28, 2008 decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 126,
finding petitioner Federico Sabay guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of Slight Physical Injuries.
TheRTCdecisionintumaffirmedtheMetropolitanTrialCourt's(MTC)judgment.

TheAntecedentFacts

At around three oclock to four oclock in the afternoon of June 12, 2001, while the petitioner and his daughter
ErlindaSabay(Erlinda)werebusylayingwoodandwaterpipesintheyardofGodofredoLopez(Godofredo),the
latter confronted the petitioner about his (the petitioners) alleged intrusion into Godofredos property. A verbal
altercationensuedbetweenthem.

Inthecourseoftheverbalexchange,ErlindahitGodofredoontheheadwithahardobject.Thepetitionerjoined
inbythrowingastoneatGodofredosface,breakingthelatterseyeglasses.Godofredoclaimedthatasaresult,
hefeltdizzy.5ThepetitionerandErlindathenshoutedatGodofredoandthreatenedtokillhim.

Immediatelythereafter,JervieLopez(Jervie)cameandpacifiedthethree.Butinthecoursehisefforts,hewashit
inthehandwithabolo.6Theneighborsintervenednotlongafterandpacifiedtheparties.

The Medico Legal Certificates7 dated June 12, 2001 showed that Godofredo suffered a contusion on the left
parietalareaofhisheadandanabrasioninhisleftcheek,whileJerviesustainedawoundinhisrightpalm.

On June 13, 2001, Godofredo and Jervie filed a complaint against the petitioner before the barangay.8 The
partiesagreedtosettlethecomplaintbasedontherecommendationofthebuildinginspectorandreflectedtheir
agreementintheirKasunduangPagaayos9 (Kasunduan) dated June 20, 2001. The Kasunduan, however, was
not implemented because the building inspector failed to make the promised recommendation to resolve the
boundarydisputebetweentheparties.10Thus,theOfficeoftheBarangayCaptainissuedaCertificatetoFilean
Action.

The petitioner was accordingly charged before the MTC with the crime of Physical Injuries under two (2)
Informations11thatread:

CriminalCaseNo.209934

That on or about the 12th day of June 2001, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withoutjustifiablecause,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously hit with a bolo one JERVIE LOPEZ, thereby inflicting upon the latter physical injuries which required
and will require medical attendance for not more than seven (7) days or incapacitated or will incapacitate said
victimfromperforminghishabitualworkforthesameperiodoftime.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_192150_2014.html 1/6
7/8/2015 G.R.No.192150
CriminalCaseNo.209935

That on or about the 12th day of June 2001, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withoutjustifiablecause,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously hit with a bolo one GODOFREDO LOPEZ, thereby inflicting upon the latter physical injuries which
requiredandwillrequiremedicalattendancefornotmorethanseven(7)daysorincapacitatedorwillincapacitate
saidvictimfromperforminghishabitualworkforthesameperiodoftime.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

The petitioner, together with his daughter Erlinda, was also charged with Light Threats12 for allegedly uttering
threateningwordsagainsttheprivatecomplainant,Godofredo.

Whenarraigned,bothaccusedpleadednotguiltytoallthecharges.Trialonthemeritsthereafterensued.

Atthetrial,theprosecutionpresentedthefollowingeyewitnesses:RodolfoLata,Sr.yDolping(Rodolfo)andDina
Perez y Alapaap (Dina) (who both testified on the details of the crime) Godofredo Jervie and Dr. Melissa
Palugod (Godofredos attending physician). The defense, on the other hand, presented the petitioner, Wilfredo
VerdadandCaridadSabay.

Thepetitionerdeniedthechargeandclaimedthathehadsimplyactedinselfdefense.Henarratedthatonthe
dateoftheincidentwhilehewasputtingamonumentonhislot,Godofredosuddenlyhithimwithanironbarinhis
righthand,causinghiminjuries.JesusLopez(Jessie),Godofredosson,wentoutoftheirhouseandwitha.38
calibergun,firedthegunathim.Todefendhimself,hegotastoneandthrewitatGodofredo.

TheMTCsandtheRTCsRulings

In its decision, MTC believed the prosecution's version of the incident and found the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of slight physical injuries. The MTC, however, dismissed the light threats
charged,asthisoffenseisdeemedabsorbedinthecrimeofslightphysicalinjuries.Further,itabsolvedErlinda
forthecrimeoflightthreatsastherewasnoallegationthatsheutteredthreateningwordsagainstGodofredo.

The MTC rejected the petitioners claim of selfdefense for lack of clear, convincing and satisfactory supporting
evidence.TheMTCheldthatthepetitionerfailedtoprovethattherehadbeenunlawfulaggressionbyGodofredo
hedidnotevenpresentthemedicalcertificateofhisinjuryasevidence.Thedispositivepartofitsdecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,accusedFedericoSabayyBactolisfoundguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
fortwo(2)countsofSlightPhysicalInjuriesandismetedapenaltyofimprisonmentofEleven(11)Daysforeach
countasthereisneithermitigatingnoraggravatingcircumstance.

SOORDERED.

Induecourse,thepetitionerappealedhisjudgmenttotheRTC,whichfullyaffirmedtheMTCsdecision.

ThepetitionersoughtrecoursewiththeCA,arguinginthisappealthat:(1)theMTChasnojurisdictionoverthe
case in view of the prosecutions failure to offer the Certification to File an Action in evidence and (2) the trial
courterredinnotsustaininghisclaimofselfdefense.

TheCAsRuling

TheCArejectedthepetitionersargumentsandaffirmedtheRTCsdecision.TheCAheldthateveniftherehad
beennoformalofferofexhibitpursuanttoSection34,Rule132oftheRulesonEvidence,theCertificationtoFile
an Action could still be admitted against the adverse party if, first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly
recordedand,second,ithasbeenincorporatedintotherecordsofthecase.NotingthattheCertificationtoFile
an Action was identified by the complainants and is attached to the records of the case, the CA ruled that an
exceptiontoSection34,Rule132oftheRulesonEvidencecouldberecognized.

TheCAalsodismissedthepetitionerspleaofselfdefense.TheCAruledthatselfdefenseisessentiallyafactual
matter that isbest addressed by the trial court in the absence of any showing that both the MTC and the RTC
overlooked weighty and substantial facts or circumstances that could alter their conclusion, the appellate court
sawnoreasontodisturbtheirfactualruling.

OnMarch22,2010,theCAdeniedthepetitionersmotionforreconsiderationhence,thepresentpetition.

TheIssues

OnthebasisofthesameargumentsraisedbeforetheCA,thepetitionerquestions:(1)thejurisdictionoftheMTC
over the criminal cases in view of the alleged inadmissibility ofthe Certification to File Action and (2) the lower

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_192150_2014.html 2/6
7/8/2015 G.R.No.192150
courtsfindingofguilt,itsappreciationoftheevidenceanditsrejectionoftheclaimofselfdefense.

TheCourtsRuling

We find no reversible error committed by the CA and affirm the petitioners conviction for two counts of slight
physicalinjuries.

On the first issue, the petitioner contends that the lower courts erred in disregarding the existence of the
KasunduanexecutedbythepartiesbeforetheLupon.Thisexistingsettlementbetweenthepartiesrenderedthe
Certification to File an Action without factual and legal basis, and is hence null and void. The petitioner also
contendsthattheCAerredinnotholdingthattheMTChasnojurisdictionoverthecriminalcasesinviewofthe
noncompliance (i.e., issuance of the Certification toFile an Action despite the existence of an agreement) with
conciliationproceduresunderPresidentialDecreeNo.1508.

Weseenomeritinthesecontentions.

The Office of the Barangay Captain Cannot be Precluded From Issuing a Certification to File an Action Where
NoActualSettlementWasReachedtheCertificationtoFileanAction

IssuedbyTheOfficeofTheBarangayisValid.

The present case was indisputably referred to the Barangay Luponfor conciliation prior to the institution of the
criminalcasesbeforetheMTC.ThepartiesinfactadmittedthatameetingbeforetheLupontranspiredbetween
them,resultinginaKasunduan.

Although they initially agreed to settle their case, the Kasunduanthat embodied their agreement was never
implemented no actual settlement materialized as the building inspector failed to make his promised
recommendationtosettlethedispute.TheBarangayCaptainwasthuscompelledtoissueaCertificationtoFile
anAction,indicatingthatthedisputingpartiesdidnotreachanysettlement.

The CA correctly observed and considered the situation: the settlement of the case was conditioned on the
recommendation of the building inspector with no recommendation, no resolution of the conflict likewise took
place.

Furthermore,theBarangayCaptain,asapublicofficial,ispresumedtoactregularlyintheperformanceofofficial
duty.13Intheabsenceofcontraryevidence,thispresumptionprevailshisissuanceofthedisputedCertificationto
FileanActionwasregularandpursuanttolaw.14Thus,theBarangayCaptainproperlyissuedtheCertificationto
FileanAction.

EvengrantingthatanirregularityhadintervenedintheBarangayCaptainsissuanceoftheCertificationtoFileand
Action, we note that this irregularity is not a jurisdictional flaw that warrants the dismissal of the criminal cases
beforetheMTC.AsweheldinDiuv.CourtofAppeals:15

Also,theconciliationprocedureunderPresidentialDecreeNo.1508isnotajurisdictionalrequirementandnon
compliancetherewithcannotaffectthejurisdictionwhichthelowercourtshadalreadyacquiredoverthesubject
matterandprivaterespondentsasdefendantstherein.Similarly,inGarcesv.CourtofAppeals,16westatedthat:

Infine,wehaveheldinthepastthatpriorrecoursetotheconciliationprocedurerequiredunderP.D.1508isnota
jurisdictional requirement, noncompliance with which would deprive a court of its jurisdiction either over the
subjectmatteroroverthepersonofthedefendant.

Thus, the MTC has jurisdiction to try and hear the petitioners case the claimed irregularity in conciliation
procedure, particularly in the issuance of the Certification to File an Action, did not deprive the court of its
jurisdiction.Ifatall,theirregularitymerelyaffectedthepartiescauseofaction.17

ThepetitionernextcontendsthateveniftherewasavalidCertificationtoFileanAction,thelowercourtsstillerred
inadmittingtheCertificateintoevidenceastheprosecutiondidnotformallyofferitasrequiredbytheRuleson
Evidence. He emphasizes that in Fideldia v. Sps. Mulato,18 the Court held that a formal offer is necessary
becausejudgesarerequiredtobasetheirfindingssolelyuponevidenceofferedbytheparties.Intheabsenceof
aformaloffer,theCertificationisnotadmissiblepursuanttoSection412ofRepublicActNo.7160,andcannotbe
consideredbythecourt.

Wedonotfindthisargumentsufficientlypersuasive.

TheCertificationtoFileanActionisAdmissible.

Section34ofRule132ofourRulesonEvidenceprovidesthatthecourtcannotconsideranyevidencethathas
not been formally offered.19 Formal offer means that the offering party shall inform the court of the purpose of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_192150_2014.html 3/6
7/8/2015 G.R.No.192150
introducingitsexhibitsintoevidence,toassistthecourtinrulingontheiradmissibilityincasetheadverseparty
objects.20 Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of this evidence even if this has been
previouslymarkedandidentified.

Thisrule,however,admitsofanexception.TheCourt,intheappropriatecases,hasrelaxedtheformalofferrule
andallowedevidencenotformallyofferedtobeadmitted.

The cases of People v. Napata,21 People v. Mate,22 and The Heirs of Romana Saves, et al. v. The Heirs of
EscolasticoSaves,etal.,23tociteafew,enumeratedtherequirementssothatevidence,notpreviouslyoffered,
can be admitted, namely: first, the evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and,
second,theevidencemusthavebeenincorporatedintherecordsofthecase.

Inthepresentcase,wefindthattherequisitesfortherelaxationoftheformalofferrulearepresent. Asthelower
1 w p h i1

courtscorrectlyobserved,GodofredoidentifiedtheCertificationtoFileanActionduringhiscrossexamination,to
wit:24

Q:AndImreferringtoyouthisCertificationfromtheOfficeoftheBrgy.docketedas18101,isthistheoneyou
arereferringto?

A:Thisiswithrespecttothehittingofmyhead.

Atty.Bihag:Atthisjuncture,yourHonor,wewouldliketorequestthatthisparticularcertificationreferringtothe
case18101entitledMr.GodofredoLopez,Mr.JervieLopezversusMr.FedericoSabayandMrs.ErlindaCastro,
bemarkedasExh."1"forthedefense.[TSN,GodofredoLopez,page119emphasisours.]

AlthoughtheCertificationwasnotformallyofferedinevidence,itwasmarkedasExhibit"1"andattachedtothe
records of the case.25 Significantly, the petitioner never objected to Godofredos testimony, particularly with the
identification and marking of the Certification. In these lights, the Court sees no reason why the Certification
shouldnotbeadmitted.

TheClaimofSelfDefense

Ontheclaimofselfdefense,werecognizethatthefactualfindingsandconclusionsoftheRTC,especiallywhen
affirmedbytheCAasinthiscase,areentitledtogreatweightandrespectandaredeemedfinalandconclusive
onthisCourtwhensupportedbytheevidenceonrecord.26

In the absence of any indication thatthe trial and the appellate courts overlooked facts or circumstances that
wouldresultinadifferentrulinginthiscase,wewillnotdisturbtheirfactualfindings.27

WethusupholdtherulingsoftheRTCandtheCAwhichfoundtheelementsofthecrimeofslightphysicalinjuries
fully established during the trial. The RTC and the CA correctly rejected the petitioners claim of selfdefense
becausehedidnotsubstantiateitwithclearandconvincingproof.

Selfdefense as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, implies the
admissionbytheaccusedthathecommittedtheactsthatwouldhavebeencriminalincharacterhaditnotbeen
for the presence of circumstances whose legal consequences negate the commission of a crime.28 The plea of
selfdefenseinordertoexculpatetheaccusedmustbedulyproven.Themostbasicruleisthatnoselfdefense
canberecognizeduntilunlawfulaggressionisestablished.29

Sincetheaccusedallegesselfdefense,hecarriestheburdenofevidencetoprovethathesatisfiedtheelements
required by law30 he who alleges must prove. By admitting the commission of the act charged and pleading
avoidancebasedonthelaw,hemustrelyonthestrengthofhisownevidencetoprovethatthefactsthatthelegal
avoidancerequiresarepresenttheweaknessoftheprosecutionsevidenceisimmaterialafterheadmittedthe
commissionoftheactcharged.31

Inthiscase,thepetitioneradmittedtheactsattributedtohim,andonlypleadsthatheactedinselfdefense.His
case essentially rests on the existence of unlawful aggression that Godofredo hit him with an iron bar on his
righthand.

AstheRTCandtheCApointedout,thepetitionerfailedtosubstantiatehisclaimedselfdefensebecausehedid
not even present any medical certificate as supporting evidence, notwithstanding his claim that he consulted a
doctor. Nor did he everpresent the doctor he allegedly consulted. His contention, too, that he was attacked by
Godofredoandwasshotwitha.38calibergunbyJessiewasrefutedbytheprosecutioneyewitnessesRodolfo
andDinawhobothtestifiedthatitwasthepetitionerwhohadattackedGodofredo.

The prosecution eyewitnesses' testimonies were supported by the medico legal certificates showing that
Godofredosustainedacontusionontheleftparietalareaofhisheadandanabrasiononhisleftcheek.These
medico legal findings are consistent with Godofredo' s claim that the petitioner hit him and inflicted physical
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_192150_2014.html 4/6
7/8/2015 G.R.No.192150
injuries.

In sum, we are fully satisfied that the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of slight
physicalinjuries,asthelowercourtsfound.Hisclaimofselfdefensefailsforlackofsupportingevidencehefailed
topresentanyevidenceofunlawfulaggressionandcannotthusbesaidtohavehitGodofredoasameasureto
defendhimself.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weDENYtheappealandAFFIRMthedecisiondatedOctober23,2009and
theresolutiondatedMarch22,2010oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.31532.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
ActingChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Rollo,pp.3252.
2
Id.at825pennedbyAssociateJusticeMarleneGonzalesSison,andconcurredinbyAssociateJustice
AndresB.Reyes,Jr.andAssociateJusticeVicenteS.E.Veloso.
3
Id.at2728.
4
Id.at99106pennedbyActingPresidingJudgeOscarP.Barrientos.
5
CArollo,p.77.
6
Id.
7
Id.at79and88.
8
Id.at92
9
Id.at84
10
Id.at121.
11
Id.at6869.
12
Article285oftheRevisedPenalCode.
13
Section3(m),Rule131oftheRulesonEvidence.
14
Empaynadov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.91606,December17,1991,204SCRA870,877.
15
G.R.No.115213,December19,1995,251SCRA472,478479.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_192150_2014.html 5/6
7/8/2015 G.R.No.192150
16
245Phil.450,455(1988).
17
SanMiguelVillageSchoolv.Pundogar,255Phil.689,693695(1989).
18
586Phil.7,15(2008).
19
Section34ofRule132oftheRulesofCourtstates:"Sec.34.Thecourtshallconsidernoevidencewhich
hasnotbeenformallyoffered.Thepurposeforwhichtheevidenceisofferedmustbespecified."
20
StarTwo(SPVAMC),Inc.v.Ko,G.R.No.185454,March23,2011,646SCRA371,375376.
21
258APhil.994(1989).
22
191Phil.72(1981).
23
G.R.No.152866,October6,2010,632SCRA236.
24
CArollo,TSN,p.119.
25
Id.
26
Maxwell Heavy Equipment Corporation v. Yu, G.R. No. 179395, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 653,
658.
27
IlaganMendozav.Urcia,574Phil.90,101(2008).
28
PeopleofthePhilippinesv.Gonzales,G.R.No.195534,June13,2012,672SCRA590,595596.
29
ThePeopleofthePhilippineIslandsv.Apolinario,58Phil.586(1933).
30
Supranote28.
31
PeopleofthePhilippinesv.Mediado,G.R.No.169871,February2,2011,641SCRA366,370371.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_192150_2014.html 6/6