OCA Circular No. 52-2024
OCA Circular No. 52-2024
&upteme QCourt
ceffite of tbe QCourt ~bministtatot
:.fti1anila
. VILLANUEVA
~CJIFic/rgt/2nddivisiondecision8-16-2023.gr2SS7 4O.corpusvpp
I Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, 207 Phil. 471, 477 (1983)
[per J. De Castro, Second Division].
Annex "A"
Promul,_gated: ~
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, -AUG 1 6 2023 ~
Respondent.
DECISION
Francisco v. Court a/Appeals, 207 Ph il. 471,477 ( 1983) [Per .I. De Castro, Second Division].
Rollo, pp. 19-43 .
Id. at 56- 67. The March 13, 2020 Decisio11 in CA-G. R. CR No. 43 154 was penned by Associate Justice
Zena ida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Walter S.
Ong, Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Mani l::i.
Id. at 45-46. The February I0. 202 i Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-
Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justice~ Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Walter S. Ong., Former Sixth
Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
Also spelled as Corpuz in some: parts ol'the rol/o. ~
· Decision -2- G.R. No . 255 740
Jr. (Pastor) for slight physical injuries under Article 263 of the Revised of the
Penal Code (RPC) .
The case stemmed from the Complaint-Affidavit6 dated April 30, 2018
executed by Roberto Amado Hatamosa (Roberto) for the purpose of
instituting a criminal action against Pastor, Resurecion Zamora (Resurecion),
and Felix Corpus (Felix) . Roberto a lleged that on November 25, 20 17, at
around 10:45 a.m., he was on his way to work in the barber shop when the
three accused intercepted his way and shouted "Ang yabang mong tumingin
hindi pa tayo tapos." For his part, Roberto replied "Tigilan mo ako tapos na
tayo." It was at this juncture that Pastor allegedly punched Roberto in the face
and was later joined by the two other accused, ultimately resulting in the
infliction of physical injuries upon Roberto.
ln its Resolution7 dated April 30, 20 18, the Senior Assistant City
Prosecutor noted that, although the Medico-Legal Report of Roberto shows a
period of three to nine days of treatment or incapacity, the Report likewise
states that ''there is a complete fracture at the proximal end of the fifth (5 th)
digit of the right hand." 8 Based on the premise that a fracture constitutes a
disfigurement of the finge r, the Senior Assistant City Prosecutor
recommended that the accused be indicted instead for serious physical
injuries, and the case for slight physical injuries be dismissed for lack of merit.
Pastor and the two other accused were charged with the crime of serious
physical injuries in an Inforrnation 9 dated April 30, 2018, the accusatory
portion of which reads:
CONTRARY TO LAW. 10
In its Decision, 13 the Metropolitan Trial Court (Me TC) found that the
evidence presented did not show the participation of the two other accused,
Resurecion and Felix, in the mauling of Roberto. In contrast, all the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were consistent that it was Pastor
who punched Roberto in the face which caused the latter's bloody nose and
required not less than three, but more than nine days to heal. Moreover, the
MeTC held that it cannot hold Pastor accountable for the fracture on Roberto's
finger considering that there is no evidence pointing to any of the accused as
the cause of the said injury. Thus, the MeTC found Pastor guilty of slight
physical injuries and disposed the case as follows:
SO ORDERED. 14
Later, Pastor filed an appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
However, the RTC affirmed the conviction of Pastor in its Decision 15 dated
March 20, 2019, to wit:
SO ORDERED. 16
Aggrieved, Pastor elevated the matter to the CA. Before the CA, Pastor
argued that the Information charging him with slight physical injuries had
prescribed since it was filed two months from the time of the alleged
commission or discovery of the offense. 17 However, the CA affirmed Pastor's
conviction, viz. :
13
Id. at 92- 103. The November 20, 2018 Decision in Criminal Case No. 18-1084 was penned by Presiding
Judge Belen S. Salespara- Carasig, Metropoli tan Trial Court, Branch 88, Paraiiaque City, National
Capital Judicial Region .
14
Id. at 102- 103.
15
Id at 88- 90. The March 20, 20 I9 Decision in Crim ina l Case No. 20 I 9-0059 was penned by Presiding
Judge Rolando G. How, Regional Trial Court, Branch 257, Paraiiaque City, National Capital Judicial
Region.
16
Id at 90.
17
ld.at6I.
· Decision -4- G.R. No. 255740
SO ORDERED. 18
Pastor filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA's Decision, but the
same was denied by the CA in its February 10, 202 1 Resol ution.22
Before this Court, Pastor insists that the crime he allegedly committed
had already prescribed. 23 He also argues that it was private complainant
Roberto who initially attacked his wife, and he only acted in her defense.24
In its Comment,25 the Offi ce of the Solicitor General prays that the
instant Petition be d ismissed for lack of merit.
I
Whether the factual issues raised by Pastor Corpus, Jr. y Belrnoro are
beyond the ambit of a Petition for Review on Certiorari Under Rule 45 of The
Rules of Comt
18
Id. at 67.
19
Id. at 63 .
10
Id. at 64.
21
Id. at 65.
22
Id. at 45-46.
23
I d at 25- 39.
21
• Id. at 39.
25
Id. at 240- '257.
Decision -5- G.R. No. 255740
II
Whether The CA correctly ruled that the information charging Pastor
Corpus, Jr. y Belmoro for serious physical injuries had not prescribed; and
III
Whether the CA conectly affirmed Pastor Corpus, Jr. y Belmoro 's
conviction for the crime of slight physical injuries
At surface level, it appears that the lower courts validly affirmed the
conviction of Pastor fo r committing the crime of s light physical injuries
against Roberto. Alth ough the 'Information charged Pastor w ith serious
physical injuries, the lower courts m ay valid ly find him guil ty of sl ight
physical injuries in accordance w ith the variance doctrine.
ARTICLE 263. Serious physical injuries. - Any person who shall wound,
beat, or assault another, . shall be guilty of the cnme of
serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
Clearly, the crime of slight physical injuries falls under light offenses
which prescribe in two months. 31
A perusal of the records of the case reveals that the incident between
Pastor and Roberto took place on November 25, 2017.33 Roberto executed his
Complaint-Affidavit before the prosecutor's office on January 8, 2018 .34
However, the Information against Pastor was fi led only on May 21, 2018.35 In
this regard, Article 9 1 of the RPC provides:
28
ARTICLE 25. Penalties Which May Be Imposed. - The penalties which may be imposed, according to
this Code, and thei r different classes, are those included in the fo llowing:
Scale
Principal Penalties
CorrecLional penalties:
Prisic'm correccional
2
•i ARTICLE 90. Prescription of Crimes.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
punishable by arresLo mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
,o Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "Art. 266. Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment. -
The crime of s light phys ical injuries shall be punished:
I. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries wh ich shall incapacitate the
offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same
period
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused
physical injuries which do no! prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor requ ire
medical atte ndance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall
ill-treat another by deed without causing any inju1y."
31
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "A11. 90. Prescription of crime. - [.. .] Light offenses
prescribe in two months. [.. .]
32
Paragraph 5, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code prov ides:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is loLally dtinguished. - Crim ina l liability is totally extinguished:
5. By prescription of th e crime.
33
Rollo, p. 88.
34
Id. at 143-148.
35
Id at 149- 150.
Decision -8- G.R. No. 255740
36
G.R. No. 245862 (2020) [Per J. Caguioa, First Division].
37
687 Phil. 95, 104- 105(20 12) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
38
592 Phil. 286, 297 (2008) [Per J. Hernando, First Division].
9
J G.R. No. 136506 (2023) [Per J. Hernando, First Division] .
Decision -9- G.R. No. 255740
Hence, for special laws within the scope of the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure, the principle laid down in Zaldivia and Jadewell is
controlling, ;.e., violations of municipal or city ordinance, and BP 22.
Accordingly, the ruling in Panaguiton with respect to interruption of
prescription of BP 22 shall govern only those acts committed when BP 22
is not yet covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, i.e., before
the effectivity of A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC on April 15, 2003. Thus, for acts
committed on April 15, 2003 onwards, the filing of complaint or
information in court shall interrupt the running of the prescriptive period
and not the institution of the p rel iminary investigation by investigating
agencies or the filing of a comp laint before such investigating agencies.
However, in Metropolitan Manila and Chartered Cities, only the filing
of Information in court shall toll the running of the prescriptive
period.40 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
B . Criminal Cases:
(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for
the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine
not exceeding (Pl,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising
therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine
does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P l0,000.00). (Emphasis supplied)
40 Id.
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 255740
-I I Id.
2
" 286 Phi l. 375 ( 1992) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
13
· Id. at 382-383.
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 255740
SO ORDERED.
JHOSE~PEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
4
~ Supra note 38.
~s Id.
Decision - 12 - G .R. No. 255740
I/It-- ..
AMY f?_,~-i ARO-J~ VIER
Aisociate Justice
,. ----~~~o,)k___
Assoc iate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ON.
Senior Associate Justice '
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
AL , 1-\. NDO
.. ~ ust1ce