Amanquinton vs People

7/27/2019 Amanquinton vs People

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amanquinton-vs-people 1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 186080 August 14, 2009

JULIUS AMANQUITON, Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE O T!E P!ILIPPINES, Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

Petitioner "ulius #$an%uiton &as a purok leader of 'aran(a) *estern 'icutan,Ta(ui(, Metro Manila. #s a purok leader and baran(a) tanod , he &as responsible forthe $aintenance of cleanliness, peace and order of the co$$unit).

#t +-/ p.$. on October 0, 1+, petitioner heard an e2plosion. 3e, to(ether &itht&o au2iliar) tanod , Do$inador #$ante+ and a certain !abisudo, proceeded toSa$bon( Street &here the e2plosion too4 place. Thereafter, the) sa& co$plainant5eoselie "ohn 'a6a(a bein( chased b) a certain 7il 7epulane. 8pon learnin( that'a6a(a &as the one &ho thre& the pillbo21 that caused the e2plosion, petitioner andhis co$panions also &ent after hi$.

On reachin( 'a6a(a9s house, petitioner, !abisudo and #$ante 4noc4ed on the door.*hen no one ans&ered, the) decided to hide so$e distance a&a). #fter five $inutes,'a6a(a ca$e out of the house. #t this :uncture, petitioner and his co$panionsi$$ediatel) apprehended hi$. 'a6a(a;s aunt, Maril)n #li$pu)o, follo&ed the$ tothe baran(a) hall.

'a6a(a &as later brou(ht to the police station. On the &a) to the police station,7epulane suddenl) appeared fro$ no&here and bo2ed 'a6a(a in the face. Thiscaused petitioner to order 7epulane9s apprehension alon( &ith 'a6a(a. #n incidentreport &as $ade.0

Durin( the investi(ation, petitioner learned 'a6a(a had been previousl) $auled b) a(roup $ade up of a certain Raul, 'o)et and !ris but failed to identif) t&o others. The$aulin( &as the result of (an( trouble in a certain residental co$pound in Ta(ui(!it). 'a6a(a9s $aulin( &as recorded in a baran(a) blotter &hich read-

+<0<1+Ti$e- +<+/ p.$.

R!ORD purposes

Du$atin( dito sa 'aran(a) 3ead =uarters si Dossen 'a6a(a is #li$pu)o +> )earsold student na4atira sa + ' ?alachuchi St. M.'.T. M.M.

8pan( ire4la$o )on( su$apa4 sa a4in sina Raul@,A 'o)et @atA !ris at )on( dala&an(su$apa4 a) hindi 4o 4ilala. Nan( )ari ito 4aninan( +-p.$. ara& n( @MAartes taon(4asalu4u)an at )on( labi 4o pu$uto4 at )on( 4abilan( $ata 4o a) na$a(a sabandan( 4anan. #n( i)on( 4ali&an( $u4ha at pati )on( li4od 4o a) $a) ta$a sasapa4.

Patuna) dito an( a4in( la(da.

Dossen 'ana(a Bs(d.C

Thereafter, an Infor$ation for violation of Section + BaC, #rticle VI, R#/ +>> inrelation to Section / B:C of R.#. E0> &as filed a(ainst petitioner, #$ante and7epulane. The Infor$ation read-

The undersi(ned 1nd #ssistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses "ulius #$an%uiton,Do$inador #$ante and 7il 7epulane of the cri$e of Violations of Section + BaC #rticle VI, Republic #ct No. >+ in relation to Section / B:C of R.#. No. E0>co$$itted as follo&s-

That on the 0th da) of October, 1+, in the Municipalit) of Ta(ui(, Metro Manila,Philippines and &ithin the :urisdiction of this 3onorable !ourt, the above<na$edaccused in conspirac) &ith one another, ar$ed &ith ni(htstic4, did then and there&illfull), unla&full) and feloniousl) attac4, assault and use personal violence, a for$of ph)sical abuse, upon the person of 5eoselie "ohn #. @'a6a(aA, seventeen B+C)ears old, a $inor, b) then and there $anhandlin( hi$ and hittin( hi$ &ith theirni(htstic4s, thus, constitutin( other acts of child abuse, &hich is ini$ical or pre:udicialto child9s develop$ent, in violation of the above<$entioned la&.

!ONTR#RG TO 5#*.

On arrai(n$ent, petitioner and #$ante both pleaded not (uilt). 7epulane re$ains at<lar(e.

Durin( the trial, the prosecution presented the follo&in( &itnesses- Dr. Paulito !ruH,$edico<le(al officer of the Ta(ui(<Pateros District 3ospital &ho attended to 'a6a(aon October 0, 1+, 'a6a(a hi$self, #li$pu)o and Rachelle 'a6a(a Bco$plainant9s$otherC.

The defense presented the testi$onies of petitioner, #$ante and 'riccio !u)os, thendeput) chief baran(a) tanod of the sa$e baran(a). !u)os testified that the blotternotation entered b) 7epulane and 'a6a(a &as si(ned in his presence and that the)read the contents thereof before affi2in( their si(natures.

On Ma) +, 1/, the RT! found petitioner and #$ante (uilt) be)ond reasonabledoubt of the cri$e char(ed. The dispositive portion of the RT! decision read-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186080_2009.html#fnt1





















*3RFOR, in vie& of the fore(oin(, this !ourt finds the accused "85I8S #M#N=8ITON and DOMIN#DOR #M#NT 78I5TG be)ond reasonable doubt forviolation of #rticle VI Sec. + BaC of Republic #ct >+ in relation to Section 0 B:C ofRepublic #ct E0>, hereb) sentences accused "85I8S #M#N=8ITON andDOMIN#DOR #M#NT a strai(ht penalt) of thirt) B0C da)s of ArrestoMenor .1avvphi1

'oth accused "ulius #$an%uiton and Do$inador #$ante are hereb) directed to pa)5eoselie "ohn #. 'ana(a the follo&in(-

+. #ctual da$a(es in the a$ount of P/,.J

1. Moral Da$a(es in the a$ount of P 0,.J and

0. 2e$plar) da$a(es in the a$ount of P 1,..

The case a(ainst the accused 7il 7epulane is hereb) sent to the #R!3IVS to berevived upon the arrest of the accused. 5et @aA &arrant of arrest be issued a(ainsthi$.

SO ORDRD.

#$an%uiton9s $otion for reconsideration &as denied.E

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal &hich &as (iven due course. On #u(ust 1E, 1E,the !# rendered a decision &hich affir$ed the conviction but increased the penalt).The dispositive portion of the assailed !# decision read-

*3RFOR, in vie& of the fore(oin( the Decision appealed fro$ is AIRME"&ith MO"IICATION. The accused<appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalt) offour BC )ears, t&o B1C $onths and one B+C da) of prision correccional maximum up toei(ht BEC )ears of prision mayor minimum as $a2i$u$. In addition to the da$a(esalread) a&arded, a fine of thirt) thousand pesos BP0,.C is hereb) solidaril)

i$posed the proceeds of &hich shall be ad$inistered as a cash fund b) the DS*D.

IT IS SO ORDRD.

Petitioner9s $otion for reconsideration &as denied.+

3ence, this petition. Petitioner principall) ar(ues that the facts of the case asestablished did not constitute a violation of Section + BaC, #rticle VI of R# +> anddefinitel) did not prove the (uilt of petitioner be)ond reasonable doubt.

The !onstitution itself provides that in all cri$inal prosecutions, the accused shall bepresu$ed innocent until the contrar) is proved.++ #n accused is entitled to an ac%uittal

unless his (uilt is sho&n be)ond reasonable doubt.+1

It is the pri$ordial dut) of the

prosecution to present its side &ith clarit) and persuasion, so that conviction beco$esthe onl) lo(ical and inevitable conclusion, &ith $oral certaint).+0

The necessit) for proof be)ond reasonable doubt &as discussed in People v.Berroya-+

@Proof be)ond reasonable doubtA lies in the fact that in a cri$inal prosecution, theState is arra)ed a(ainst the sub:ectJ it enters the contest &ith a prior inculpator)findin( in its handsJ &ith unli$ited $eans of co$$andJ &ith counsel usuall) of

authorit) and capacit), &ho are re(arded as public officers, as therefore as spea4in(se$i<:udiciall), and &ith an attitude of tran%uil $a:est) often in stri4in( contrast to thatof defendant en(a(ed in a perturbed and distractin( stru((le for libert) if not for life.These ine%ualities of position, the la& strives to $eet b) the rule that there is to be noconviction &here there is reasonable doubt of (uilt. 3o&ever, proof be)ondreasonable doubt re%uires onl) $oral certaint) or that de(ree of proof &hich producesconviction in an unpre:udiced $ind.

The RT! and !# hin(ed their findin( of petitioner9s (uilt be)ond reasonable doubt Bofthe cri$e of child abuseC solel) on the supposed positive identification b) theco$plainant and his &itness B#li$pu)oC of petitioner and his co<accused as theperpetrators of the cri$e.

*e note 'a6a(a9s state$ent that, &hen he &as apprehended b) petitioner and #$ante, there &ere $an) people around.+/ Get, the prosecution presented onl)'a6a(a and his aunt, #li$pu)o, as &itnesses to the $aulin( incident itself. *here&ere the other people &ho could have testified, in an unbiased $anner, on thealle(ed $aulin( of 'a6a(a b) petitioner and #$ante, as supposedl) &itnessed b) #li$pu)oK+> The testi$onies of the t&o other prosecution &itnesses, Dr. Paulito !ruHand Rachelle 'a6a(a, did not fortif) 'a6a(a9s clai$ that petitioner $auled hi$, forthe follo&in( reasons- Dr. !ruH $erel) attended to 'a6a(a9s in:uries, &hile Rachelletestified that she sa& 'a6a(a onl) after the in:uries have been inflicted on hi$.

*e note further$ore that, 'a6a(a failed to controvert the validit) of the baran(a)blotter he si(ned re(ardin( the $aulin( incident &hich happened prior to hisapprehension b) petitioner. Neither did he ever den) the alle(ation that he fi(ured ina prior batter) b) (an( $e$bers.

#ll this raises serious doubt on &hether 'a6a(a9s in:uries &ere reall) inflicted b)petitioner, et al ., to the e2clusion of other people. In fact, petitioner testified clearl)that 7epulane, &ho had been harborin( a (rud(e a(ainst 'a6a(a, ca$e out ofno&here and punched 'a6a(a &hile the latter &as bein( brou(ht to the police station.7epulane, not petitioner, could ver) &ell have caused 'a6a(a;s in:uries.

#li$pu)o ad$itted that she did not see &ho actuall) caused the bloodied condition of'a6a(a9s face because she had to first put do&n the bab) she &as then carr)in(&hen the $elee started.+ More i$portantl), #li$pu)o stated that she &as told b)'a6a(a that, &hile he &as alle(edl) bein( held b) the nec4 b) petitioner, others &ere

hittin( hi$. #li$pu)o &as obviousl) testif)in( not on &hat she personall) sa& but on&hat 'a6a(a told her.




























*hile &e ordinaril) do not interfere &ith the findin(s of the lo&er courts on thetrust&orthiness of &itnesses, &hen there appear in the records facts andcircu$stances of real &ei(ht &hich $i(ht have been overloo4ed or $isapprehended,this !ourt cannot shir4 fro$ its dut) to sift fact fro$ fiction.

*e appl) the pro reo principle and the e%uipoise rule in this case. *here theevidence on an issue of fact is in %uestion or there is doubt on &hich side theevidence &ei(hs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.+E Ifinculpator) facts and circu$stances are capable of t&o or $ore e2planations, one

consistent &ith the innocence of the accused and the other consistent &ith his (uilt,then the evidence does not fulfill the test of $oral certaint) and &ill not :ustif) aconviction.+

Ti$e and a(ain, &e have held that-

Republic #ct No. >+ is a $easure (eared to&ards the i$ple$entation of a nationalco$prehensive pro(ra$ for the survival of the $ost vulnerable $e$bers of thepopulation, the Filipino children, in 4eepin( &ith the !onstitutional $andate under #rticle LV, Section 0, para(raph 1, that " T#$ St%t$ s#%&& '$($)' t#$ *+g#t o( t#$#+&'*$) to %ss+st%)$, +)&u'+)g -*o-$* %*$ %)' )ut*+t+o), %)' s-$+%&-*ot$t+o) (*o %&& (o*s o( )$g&$t, %/us$, *u$&t, $-&o+t%t+o), %)' ot#$*o)'+t+o)s -*$u'++%& to t#$+* '$3$&o-$)t. This piece of le(islation supplies the

inade%uacies of e2istin( la&s treatin( cri$es co$$itted a(ainst children, na$el), theRevised Penal !ode and Presidential Decree No. >0 or the !hild and Gouth *elfare!ode. #s a statute that provides for a $echanis$ for stron( deterrence a(ainst theco$$ission of child abuse and e2ploitation, the la& has stiffer penalties for theirco$$ission, and a $eans b) &hich child traffic4ers could easil) be prosecuted andpenaliHed. #lso, the definition of child abuse is e2panded to enco$pass not onl)those specific acts of child abuse under e2istin( la&s but includes also other acts ofne(lect, abuse, cruelt) or e2ploitation and other conditions pre:udicial to the child9sdevelop$ent.1

3o&ever, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp s&ord, read) to bebrandished a(ainst an accused even if there is a patent lac4 of proof to convict hi$ ofthe cri$e. The ri(ht of an accused to libert) is as i$portant as a $inor9s ri(ht not to

be sub:ected to an) for$ of abuse. 'oth are enshrined in the !onstitution. One neednot be sacrificed for the other.

There is no dearth of la&, rules and re(ulations protectin( a child fro$ an) and allfor$s of abuse. *hile unfortunatel), incidents of $altreat$ent of children abounda$idst social ills, care has to be li4e&ise ta4en that &a)&ard )ouths should not becuddled b) a $isapplication of the la&. Societ), throu(h its la&s, should correct thedeviant conduct of the )outh rather than ta4e the cud(els for the$. 5est &e re(ress toa culture of :uvenile delin%uenc) and errant behavior, la&s for the protection ofchildren a(ainst abuse should be applied onl) and strictl) to actual abusers.

The ob:ective of this see$in(l) catch<all provision on abuses a(ainst children &ill bebest achieved if para$eters are set in the la& itself, if onl) to prevent baselessaccusations a(ainst innocent individuals. Perhaps the ti$e has co$e for !on(ress to

revie& this $atter and institute the safe(uards necessar) for the attain$ent of itslaudable ends.

*e reiterate our rulin( in People v. Mamalias-1+

*e e$phasiHe that the (reat (oal of our cri$inal la& and procedure is not to sendpeople to the (aol but to do :ustice. The prosecution9s :ob is to prove that the accusedis (uilt) be)ond reasonable doubt. !onviction $ust be based on the stren(th of theprosecution and not on the &ea4ness of the defense. Thus, &hen the evidence of the

prosecution is not enou(h to sustain a conviction, it $ust be re:ected and the accusedabsolved and released at once.

!EREORE, the petition is hereb) GRANTE". The #u(ust 1E, 1E decision and"anuar) +/, 1 resolution of !ourt of #ppeals are *$3$*s$' and SET ASI"E.Petitioner "ulius #$an%uiton is hereb) ACQUITTE" of violation of Section + BaC, #rticle VI of R# +>.

SO ORDRD.

RENATO C. CORONA #ssociate "ustice

* !ON!8R-

RE5NATO S. PUNO!hief "ustice!hairperson

ANTONIO T. CARPIO #ssociate "ustice

TERESITA J. LEONAR"O"ECASTRO

#ssociate "ustice

LUCAS P. 7ERSAMIN

#ssociate "ustice

! R T I F I ! # T I O N

Pursuant to Section +0, #rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif) that the conclusions inthe above decision had been reached in consultation before the case &as assi(ned tothe &riter of the opinion of the !ourt9s Division.

RE5NATO S. PUNO!hief "ustice

oot)ot$s














+ !o<accused of petitioner in !ri$inal !ase No. +11>. #$ante

opted to appl) for probation. Rollo, p. 0.

1 #n i$provised e2plosive device.

0 +<0<1+

Ti$e- +<> p.$.

R!ORD purposes

Na(sad)a si 7el Pulane G !astello 1/ )rs. Old 'inata $a)trabaho Tubon( 'acolod na4atira sa no.0 Sa$bon( St.,M.'.T. Mla.

8pan( ire4la$o si Neosen BsicC 'ana(a + )rs old Dahilsi)a an( na4ita<na$in( na na(ha(is n( pillbo2 sa harapn( tric)cle na na4aparada sa 4ahabaan n( sa$bon(.

Patuna) dito an( 4an)an( la(da.

7el pulanes Bs(dC. Rollo, p. E.

Dossen 'a6a(a is the sa$e person as 5eoselie "ohn #. 'a6a(a.

/ Republic #ct.

> #n #ct Providin( for Stron(er Deterrence and Special Protection

#(ainst !hild #buse, 2ploitation and Discri$ination, Providin(Penalties for its Violation and for Other Purposes.

Rollo, pp. /1<>.

E Resolution dated "une 1, 1>. Id., pp. ><.

Id., pp. 0</.

+ Resolution dated "anuar) +/, 1. Id., p. /+.

++ !ONSTIT8TION, #rticle III, Section + B1C.

+1 R85S OF !O8RT, Rule +00, Section 1.

+0 People v. Fernandez , 0 Phil. 0/, / B11C.

+ 0 Phil. +, 10 B+C.

+/ Rollo, p. .

+> Id.

+ Id., p. +>.

+E People v. Aar!uez 7.R. No. +/>1, 1 "anuar) 1>,

S!R# 11/, 10.

+ People v. #a$may 0>/ Phil. >>, >00 B+C.

1 %onzalo Araneta v. People, 7.R. No. +1/, 1 "une 1E,

//> S!R# 010, 001.

1+ People v. Mamalias, 0E/ Phil. , /+0</+ B1C.

The 5a&phil Pro:ect < #rellano 5a& Foundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186080_2009.html#rnt1





























































Documents

Amanquinton vs People