11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No.

165685

Today is Thursday, November 03, 2022

  Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 165685             March 14, 2007

REYNALDO R. PILARES, SR., Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,1 petitioner Reynaldo R.
Pilares, Sr. prays for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 March 2000 in CA-G.R. CR No.
20275,2 affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77, Malolos, Bulacan, in
Criminal Case No. 1023-M-94, dated 13 November 1996,3 finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Serious Physical Injuries under Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code.

On 10 March 1994, petitioner and his son, Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. (Reynaldo Jr.) were charged in an Information4 for
Frustrated Homicide allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 16th day of January 1994, in the municipality of Meycauyan, province of Bulacan, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with knives and with intent to
kill one Pedro Bantigue, Jr. y Tanjutco, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and stab with the said knives they were then provided
the said Pedro Bantigue, Jr. y Tanjutco, hitting the latter on the face, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical
injuries which required medical attendance for a period of more than 30 days and incapacitated him from performing
his customary labor for the same period of time, which ordinarily would have caused the death of the said Pedro
Bantigue, Jr. y Tanjutco, thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of homicide
as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of their will, that is, by the
timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Pedro Bantigue, Jr. y Tanjutco which prevented his death.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 1/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
When arraigned on 15 August 1994, petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge therein. Trial on
the merits thereafter ensued.

The prosecution presented its case through the testimonies of its witnesses, namely: Pedro T. Bantigue Jr. (private
complainant), Ernesto Mangunay (Mangunay) and Dr. Francisco C. Rodriguez (Dr. Rodriguez).

Their testimonies are summarized as follows:

Private complainant works as a movie stuntman and a driver of an international firm. He is a resident of Brgy.
Malhacan, Meycauyan, Bulacan. He testified that on 16 January 1994, at about 12:00 in the morning, he was
brought home by his brother-in-law, Mangunay, using the latter’s car. After dropping him at his house at around 1:00
in the morning, Mangunay’s car broke down due to engine overheat. He advised Mangunay to wait for the engine to
cool down before starting it again. Thereafter, he and Mangunay decided to park the car at a nearby chapel. Bored
of waiting, they went to a nearby store to buy two bottles of beer. The store is owned by the petitioner. While
handing over the two bottles of beer, the petitioner told the private complainant that drinking liquor within and near
the former’s store is not allowed. Private complainant replied that they will drink at the back of Mangunay’s car. At
this juncture, private complainant handed to petitioner a twenty-peso bill and stated that the balance will serve as a
deposit. Upon noticing that the petitioner was not satisfied, private complainant gave him a one hundred-peso bill
and uttered "O, ano pa?" Irked, petitioner answered back "O, ano?" Thereafter, private complainant and Mangunay
proceeded to the latter’s car and drank at the back portion thereof.5

After consuming the said bottles of beer, private complainant and Mangunay bought two more bottles from the
petitioner but this time no bickering ensued between the private complainant and the petitioner. Still unsatisfied, they
went back to the petitioner’s store for the third time and bought two more bottles of beer. Again, no argument
between the private complainant and petitioner took place. When private complainant and Mangunay returned the
last empty bottles of beer to petitioner, the latter asked the private complainant "O, ano pa?" In response thereto, the
private complainant demanded for his change and exclaimed "O, ano pa?" to which the petitioner retorted "O, ano
pa?" Suddenly, the petitioner took his one-foot bladed weapon and stormed out of his store. The private complainant
told Mangunay to stay put. When the petitioner was about to approach the private complainant, Reynaldo Jr., armed
with a kitchen knife, emerged and followed the petitioner. The private complainant ran away but the petitioner and
Reynaldo Jr. chased him. After running one hundred meters, the private complainant stumbled and fell on the
ground. While private complainant was lying with his back on the ground, Reynaldo Jr. approached him. When
Reynaldo Jr. was about to stab the private complainant, the latter tried to avoid the same by swerving his head to
the right side/direction. The private complainant was hit by the kitchen knife on the right side of his face, particularly,
on the right cheekbone. Afterwards, the petitioner appeared and closed in on the private complainant. The private
complainant was still lying with his back on the ground when the petitioner tried to stab him. The private complainant
parried the same with his left foot and rolled over his body until he reached the side of a fence. Later, the private
complainant heard someone shouting "Tama na yan! Tigilan na yan!" Thereupon, the petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. left
him.6

After regaining his strength, private complainant proceeded to his house and upon arriving thereat, Mangunay
brought him to the Malhacan Hospital. Subsequently, the private complainant was transferred to the Manila Central
University Hospital (MCU Hospital) where he was treated for three days. Private complainant claimed that he spent
₱9,000.00 for the professional fee of the attending physician and that before the incident, his daily income as
stuntman in foreign films was five hundred pesos and above.7

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 2/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
Mangunay is the private complainant’s brother-in-law. He is an employee of Procter and Gamble Phils. and a
resident of Sto. Nino, Meycauyan, Bulacan. He narrated that on 16 January 1994, at about 12:00 in the morning, he
brought home private complainant in Brgy. Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, using his own car. When he was about
to return to his house at around 1:00 in the morning, the car broke down due to engine overheat. The private
complainant advised him to wait for the engine to cool down before starting it again. Thereafter, they parked the car
in a nearby chapel. At this stage, the private complainant invited him for some bottles of beer. They went into a
nearby store owned by the petitioner which is about six to seven meters away from the car. While buying two bottles
of beer, the petitioner informed the private complainant that drinking of liquor within and near the store is prohibited.
The private complainant replied that they will drink inside the car. Subsequently, he and private complainant
returned to the car and drank the bottles of beer. After consuming the two bottles of beer, the private complainant
returned to the store and bought two more bottles.8

Craving for more, the private complainant returned to the store for the third time and bought two more bottles.
Thinking that the engine of the car had already cooled down and was now in good condition, they proceeded to the
store and returned the bottles. When they were about to leave the store, the petitioner spoke "O, ano?" in a
confrontational manner. Private complainant answered back angrily "E, ano rin?" Reynaldo Jr. was situated at the
back of the petitioner and was observing the exchange of words. Suddenly, the petitioner, armed with a knife, went
out of his house to confront the private complainant. Private complainant told Mangunay to stay put. Later, Reynaldo
Jr., also armed with a knife, followed the petitioner. Mangunay opined that the private complainant did not notice that
petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. were armed with knives. Afterwards, the private complainant ran towards the other side
of the store prompting the petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. to chase him. Mangunay tried to seek assistance from other
people in the neighborhood but to no avail. Hence, he went inside the car and waited for the private complainant.9

Dr. Rodriguez is a physician-surgeon assigned to the Department of Surgery, MCU Hospital. He testified that
sometime on 16 or 17 January 1994, he treated the private complainant who was referred to him from the
emergency section of the said hospital. The private complainant sustained multiple deep lacerations on his face
particularly situated: a) from the cheekbone down to the lower lip measuring fifteen centimeters in length; b) on the
lower right lip measuring one centimeter in length and c) near the left side of the upper lip measuring two
centimeters in length. He also had an abrasion on his forehead.10

According to Dr. Rodriguez, these injuries could have been caused by a dull-edged instrument like a dull knife or
any blunt instrument.11 He described the said injuries as serious physical injuries which, if not treated properly, may
result in the private complainant having a "squint," "yung tumatabingi ang mukha," or "palaging kumikindat" since
"the facial nerve is near the area and there is a slight injury there." He explained that the lacerations were so deep
that "you can almost see the cheekbone" of the private complainant.12

He also pointed out that the injuries suffered by the private complainant could not have been caused by a kitchen
knife, otherwise, the resulting wound would be an incised wound which is clean cut in character. He stated that the
wound could not have been caused by the private complainant’s head or face hitting a metal object or a rough
pavement because if such was the case, there would have been more abrasion than laceration on his face. He
opined that the private complainant was facing his attacker/s when the latter struck him with an upward thrust.13

On the other hand, the defense relied on the testimonies of the petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. to refute the afore-stated
charges. The following are their substantial narrations:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 3/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
Petitioner is a resident of Brgy. Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, where he and his family own a two-storey house,
the ground floor of which serves as a mini-store. He knows the private complainant because they are neighbors.
Although the aunts of private complainant’s wife are involved in some court cases against the petitioner and his
family, the petitioner and private complainant had no personal quarrels or disagreements prior to the incident in
question.14

Petitioner testified that on 15 January 1994, at about 10:00 in the evening, he was tending his store when private
complainant and Mangunay came over to the store. The private complainant told petitioner "Rene, bigyan mo ako
ng dalawang boteng beer." Petitioner did not immediately accede and instead replied "bote." The private
complainant took some money from his pocket, handed it over to the petitioner and voiced out "O, ano pa? Yan
isang daan yan." Sensing that the private complainant was hot-headed, the petitioner instead asked his wife to hand
over the bottles of beer to the private complainant. The petitioner tried to give the change to the private complainant
but the latter refused to accept it.15

At about 11:00 in the evening, the petitioner was resting when the private complainant and Mangunay returned to
the store. The private complainant asked the petitioner’s wife who was then tending the store "Nasaan si Rene?"
Petitioner’s wife answered "Namamahinga na iyong Mister ko dahil medyo pagod na maghapon." Private
complainant demanded "Sabihin mo sa kanya na siya ang gusto kong magbili." The petitioner’s wife ignored such
request and proceeded to serve the beer to the private complainant. The latter, however, refused to accept the beer
and insisted that the petitioner should be the one to serve the beer. Private complainant also remarked "Nagtatago
yan, duwag yan eh." Later, the petitioner came out and served the beer to the private complainant.16

At about 1:00 in the morning, the private complainant and Mangunay returned again to the store to buy four more
bottles of beer. When the petitioner was about to hand over the bottles of beer to the private complainant, the latter
called him a "coward" and dared him to get out for a fight. Insulted, the petitioner went out of his store and chased
the private complainant. Unable to catch up with the private complainant, the petitioner returned to the store. While
the petitioner was on his way back to the store, the private complainant followed the former and threw stones at him.
The petitioner pursued the private complainant for the second time but he failed to catch him. Petitioner returned to
the store but the private complainant followed him again and hurled stones at him. For the third time, the petitioner
chased the private complainant. Tired of running, the petitioner walked briskly trailing the private complainant. Upon
reaching Floro street, the private complainant stumbled and fell to the ground.17

Thereafter, the petitioner approached the private complainant. He noticed that the right face of the private
complainant had a "scratch and a reddish line across the right cheek, and, something was foaming or bumubula-
bula at the back of his ear." When the private complainant tried to stand up, the petitioner kicked him three times but
none of those kicks landed on the private complainant. Petitioner admitted that he punched the private complainant
on the left jaw but the same was not that strong or solid. Thus, the petitioner was surprised when the private
complainant fell to the ground after the punch.18

Petitioner denied that he was armed with a knife during the chase and confrontation with the private complainant.
According to him, he was then merely carrying a "plastic material wrapped in a newspaper around one foot and a
half [in size] with a chisel-like edge which he used in picking ice and killing rats."19 He admitted that he was holding
such object in his right hand when he, using the same hand, punched the private complainant on his left jaw.20 He,
however, denied that such object had touched, hit or slashed the face of the private complainant since he was
holding it "vertically" and thus cannot in any way inflict injury on the private complainant.21 Petitioner alleged that his
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 4/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
son, Reynaldo Jr., had no participation whatsoever in the verbal tussle in the store and in the subsequent chase and
confrontation between him and the private complainant; that Reynaldo Jr. was sleeping at the upper part of the
house during the said events; and that he was already on his way home after the confrontation with the private
complainant when he met Reynaldo Jr.22

Reynaldo Jr. works as a Field Representative of Universal Sales Corporation. He testified that petitioner is his father.
He narrated that he was sleeping at the upper part of their house while his parents and elder sister were downstairs
when the incident occurred; that at about 1:00 in the morning, his elder sister, Perlita Pilar Pilares, woke him up and
told him to follow the petitioner as the latter and the private complainant were quarreling; that he immediately went
out of the house to follow the petitioner; that when he was about one post away from their house, he met the
petitioner and asked the latter on what had transpired; that the petitioner told him "Let’s go home and nothing of
importance had happened"; that when they were already home, the petitioner explained that the private complainant
was challenging him to a fight as early as 10:00 in the evening; that late in the morning, the petitioner pointed to him
the place of the incident; and that he did not see bloodstains in the area where the private complainant allegedly
tripped and fell.23

On 13 November 1996, the RTC rendered its Decision finding petitioner guilty only of the crime of Serious Physical
Injuries under Article 263, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code. It, however, acquitted Reynaldo Jr. of any crime.
It did not give merit to the testimony of the private complainant that the latter’s lacerated wounds in the face were
inflicted by Reynaldo Jr. who was then allegedly carrying a kitchen knife. Instead, it sustained the narration of the
incident by the petitioner as it was compatible with the findings and testimony of Dr. Rodriguez that the deep
lacerated wounds sustained by private complainant were caused by a dull-edged or blunt instrument and not by a
kitchen knife. Petitioner admitted that he was carrying a plastic material with a chisel-like edge when he chased the
private complainant. He also admitted that he was holding such object in his right hand when he, using the same
hand, punched the private complainant on the left jaw. Thus, the RTC concluded that it is highly probable that when
petitioner punched the private complainant, the object, which has a dull-edge, had also slashed the private
complainant’s face "upward from the latter’s lower lip up to his right cheekbone."

It opined that the private complainant had implicated Reynaldo Jr. in the incident because if he succeeded in having
Reynaldo Jr. convicted, it would bring more harm and damage to the Pilares family. It took note of the fact that the
petitioner was already 66 years old while Reynaldo Jr. was employed in a prestigious firm and was presumed to
have a bright future. It also ruled that there was no convincing evidence showing that the petitioner had intended to
kill the private complainant and that there was conspiracy between the petitioner and Reynaldo Jr. to kill the private
complainant. The fallo of the said Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding accused Reynaldo Pilares, Sr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious
Physical Injuries, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR
(4) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY OF ARRESTO MAYOR TO FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS OF
PRISION CORRECIONAL and to pay Pedro Bantigue, Jr. the sum of NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY
THREE PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (₱9,133.50) in reimbursement of actual medical expenses incurred.

The guilt of accused Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, said accused is
acquitted of the offense charged. The Municipal Treasurer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, is ordered to release to the said
accused the cash bond which he posted for his provisional liberty under O.R. No. 459823 dated April 11, 1994.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 5/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
Petitioner appealed the foregoing decision to the Court of Appeals. On 28 March 2000, the Court of Appeals
promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the RTC Decision. It ruled that petitioner is liable for the crime of
serious physical injuries under paragraph 4 and not under paragraph 3 of Article 263, as held by the RTC, since the
allegations in the information clearly pertain to paragraph 4. The decretal portion thereof reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo dated November 13, 1996, finding accused appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious Physical Injuries is hereby AFFIRMED in all respect except with the
modification reducing the sentence imposed as aforestated.

Petitioner filed the present petition on the following grounds:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ADHERING TO
SEC. 2 RULE 133 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT OR DECLARING THAT THE GUILT OF
THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II.

THE HONOROBALE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE RULING OF
THE TRIAL COURT IS UNFOUNDED AND THERE EXIST SPECIAL OR COMPELLING REASONS
FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING.

III.

APPELLANT’S CASE DESERVES A THOROUGH RECONSIDERATION AND RE-EVALUATION TO

AVERT GRAVE INJUSTICE TO AN OLD AND SICKLY MAN (75 YEARS OF AGE) WHO IS
INNOCENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.

Since the first and the second issues are interrelated, we will discuss and resolve them jointly.

Petitioner argues that there is no evidence showing that he inflicted injuries to the face of the private complainant. In
fact, according to him, the private complainant had identified Reynaldo Jr. as the person who inflicted wounds on his
right cheek and not the petitioner. Moreover, the private complainant testified that the petitioner tried to stab him in
the face but he evaded it. In addition, the prosecution witness Mangunay did not actually see the person who
inflicted wounds on private complainant’s face.

Petitioner also stressed the fact that he was then 66 years old and suffering from certain ailment at the time of the
incident. He was not as strong and robust as the private complainant who was younger and stronger than him,
considering the fact that the private complainant was also a movie stuntman. As such, he could not have inflicted
serious harm on the private complainant. Petitioner also maintained that since he was holding the plastic material
with a chisel-like edge in his right hand vertically at the time he punched the private complainant in the face, the
same could not have slashed the latter’s face. He theorized that the private complainant had sustained deep
lacerations on his face when the latter fell and hit a rough pavement during the incident.

We reject these contentions.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 6/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
It is well-settled both in law and jurisprudence that the guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt
before he can be convicted of the crime charged.24 Absolute guarantee of guilt is not demanded by law to convict a
person of a criminal charge but there must, at least, be moral certainty on each element essential to constitute the
offense and on the responsibility of the offender. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is meant to be that, all things
given, the mind of the judge can rest at ease concerning its verdict.25

Article 263, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, states that the crime of serious physical injuries is committed
when a person has wounded, beaten or assaulted another and that the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused
the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than 30 days, viz:

Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. – Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the
crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:

xxxx

4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correcional in its minimum period, if the physical
injuries inflicted shall have cause the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days. x x
x.

Based on this provision, the elements of the crime of serious physical injuries under paragraph 4 of the Revised
Penal Code may be deduced as follows:

1. That the offender has wounded, beaten, or assaulted another; and

2. That the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person
for more than 30 days.

Further, there must be no intent to kill on the part of the offender in inflicting the injury.

From the testimonies of all the witnesses, the following have been established: (1) Identity of the malefactor –
petitioner; and (2) the existence and infliction of the injuries on the face of the private complainant. Controverted are:
co-participation of Reynaldo Jr.; presence of intent to kill; and cause of the commission of the crime (whether there
was justification in the infliction of the injuries).

Petitioner admitted that he was carrying a plastic material with a chisel-like edge when he chased the private
complainant.26 Petitioner also acknowledged that he was holding such object in his right hand when he, using the
same hand, punched the private complainant in the face.27 Moreover, the RTC found that when the petitioner
punched the private complainant in the face, it was "highly probable" that the object, which had a dull-edge, also
slashed the private complainant’s face "upward from the latter’s lower lip up to his right cheekbone."28 The private
complainant himself and Mangunay alleged that the petitioner was carrying a bladed weapon at the time of the
chase.29

Dr. Rodriguez also declared that the injuries sustained by the private complainant were caused by a dull-edged or
blunt instrument similar to what the petitioner was carrying at the time of the chase and assault.30 Dr. Rodriguez
explained that the wounds could not have been caused by a kitchen knife which was the weapon allegedly used by
Reynaldo Jr. in slashing the face of the private complainant because, if such was the case, the wound would have
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 7/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685

been an incised wound, cleanly cut.31 He added that the injuries could not have been due to the fact that the private
complainant’s face hit a rough pavement or a metal object when the latter fell to the ground during the incident
since, if this was so, then the private complainant would have sustained more abrasions than lacerations.32 The
medical certificate33 of the private complainant as signed and testified to by Dr. Rodriguez shows that the former
had sustained multiple lacerations on the face and only one abrasion on the forehead.34

In inflicting the wound on the private complainant on the right cheek, it is apparent, however, that the petitioner had
no intent to kill the private complainant. He could have easily killed the private complainant during the incident as the
latter was already intoxicated and lying on the ground. Instead, upon inflicting injuries on the face of the private
complainant, the petitioner walked away from the private complainant and proceeded home. The nature and location
of the wounds further belie any intent to kill. The medical certificate signed and issued by Dr. Rodriguez to the
private complainant states that the facial injuries suffered by the latter would be healed after 30 days or more.35

As to the participation of Reynaldo Jr., we quote with approval the findings of the RTC, to wit:

Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. testified that he met his father while the latter was already on his way home after his fight with
Bantigue. The testimony of said accused appears to be more credible as it was given in a straightforward manner
coupled with his demeanor on the witness stand which excuded an aura of a truthful testimony. This Court is more
inclined to believe that Bantigue is insisting on implicating accused Pilares, Jr. because if he succeeds in having him
convicted, he will be able to do more harm and damage to the Pilares family. Accused Reynaldo Pilares, Sr. is a 66
year-old man, accused Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. who is presently working as Field Representative of Universal Sales
Corporation is presumed to have a bright future.

It is a settled rule that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does
not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to sustain a conviction (People vs. Taruc, G.R. No. 74655,
January 20, 1988, cited in People vs. Torre, 184 SCRA 525; People vs. Parayno, 24 SCRA 3 cited in People vs
Libag, 184 SCRA 707). The fact that the defense interposed by Reynaldo Pilares, Jr. is weak is inconsequential, as
the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense (People vs.
Mendoza, 203 SCRA 148).36

Finally, it appears that petitioner was not justified in inflicting wounds on the face of the private complainant. During
the confrontation, private complainant was unarmed, intoxicated and lying on the ground. Furthermore, there was no
convincing evidence to show that the private complainant repeatedly threw stones at the petitioner during the chase.

Before concluding, we again lean to our jurisprudential moorings that the factual finding of the trial court, its
calibration of the evidence of the parties and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded respect and are
generally conclusive.37 This is even more true if the findings and conclusions of the trial court are affirmed by the
appellate court.38 In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that petitioner is guilty of the
crime of serious physical injuries. We find no compelling or exceptional reasons to deviate from their findings since
they are supported by the evidence on records and by prevailing jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 March 2000 is
hereby AFFIRMED.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 8/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

(On Leave)

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Associate Justice Asscociate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 3-23.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Elvi
John Asuncion, concurring; id. at 38-48.
3 Penned by Judge Aurora Santiago-Lagman; id. at 49-55.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 9/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
4 CA rollo, pp. 19-20.

5 TSN, 18 November 1994, pp. 4-10; 17 April 1995, pp. 10-19.

6 TSN, 19 November 1994, pp. 11-14; 22 March 1995, pp. 5-8; 17 April 1995, pp. 20-26.

7 TSN, 22 March 1995, pp. 8-12.

8 TSN, 17 July 1995, pp. 2-7.

9 Id. at 8-13.

10 TSN, 30 October 1995, pp. 3-8.

11 Id. at 6.

12 Id. at 12-14.

13 Id. at 25-29.

14 TSN, 24 November 1995, pp. 6-10.

15 Id. at 7-12.

16 Id. at 13-17.

17 Id. at 21; 22 January 1996, pp. 3-7.

18 TSN, 16 February 1996, pp. 7-11.

19 TSN, 22 January 1996, pp. 7-8.

20 TSN, 16 February 1996, pp. 8-10.

21 Id. at 9.

22 Id. at 11-12.

23 TSN, 10 May 1996, pp. 3-21.

24 Section 2, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence; People v. Abujan, G.R. No. 140870, 11 February
2004, 422 SCRA 449, 457.
25 People v. Lumibao, G.R. Nos. 144080-81, 26 January 2004, 421 SCRA 65, 74.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 10/11
11/3/22, 11:38 AM G.R. No. 165685
26 TSN, 22 January 1996, pp. 7-8.

27 TSN, 16 February 1996, p. 8.

28 Rollo, p. 53.

29 TSN, 18 November 1994, p. 11; 17 July 1995, p. 10.

30 TSN, 30 October 1995, p. 6.

31 Id. at 25-29.

32 Id.

33 Records, pp. 102, 159 and 160.

34 TSN, 30 October 1995, pp. 3-8.

35 Rollo, p. 54.

36 Id.

37 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 134766, 16 January 2004, 420 SCRA 61, 67.

38 People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 40, 50.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_165685_2007.html 11/11