Case Digest (G.R. No. 199522)
Facts:
Ricky Dinamling v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 11, 2011 and Resolution dated November 25, 2011 in CA‑G.R. CR No. 32912, which affirmed with modification the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 5(i), in relation to Section 6(f) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).Petitioner Ricky Dinamling (a former policeman) was the accused; the respondent is the People of the Philippines. The events began on March 14, 2007, when Dinamling and a friend, after drinking, went to the boarding house of AAA (his partner of five years and mother of two of his children). Dinamling ordered AAA and the children out, told her to pack in a trash bag and a duckling carton, and threw and broke the baby’s feeding bottle; he thereafter took the older child and left. Similar prior incidents were testified to by AAA and her mother.
On March 20, 2007, Dinamling again confronted AAA outside CCC’s house: he punched her left ear causing bleeding, kicked her, pulled down her pants and panty in public, shouted insults including her family name, and left; AAA later suffered profuse bleeding and an incomplete abortion and was hospitalized March 21–24, 2007. AAA, her mother DDD, and Dr. Mae Codamon‑Diaz testified for the prosecution; petitioner testified for the defense claiming denial and alibi (he was on duty at the local police station), admitting on cross‑examination that the station was two to three minutes from AAA’s boarding house.
Two Informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court (Criminal Case Nos. 1701 and 1702) charging violation of Section 5(i) in relation to Section 6(f) of RA 9262. The RTC, after trial, found petitioner guilty of both charges (Decision August 4, 2009) and later, by Order dated September 17, 2009 (after reconsideration), applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and modified penalties in Crim. Case No. 1701. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed as to Crim. Case No. 1701 and affirmed with modification as to Crim. Case No. 1702 (CA Decision Aug. 11, 2011; Resolution Nov. 25, 2011). Petitioner filed the present Rule 45 petition, arguing (a) erroneous disregard of his defenses of denial and alibi, and (b) that Dr. Diaz’s test...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, in a Rule 45 petition, disturb the factual findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals that affirm credibility and weight of the prosecution’s witnesses?
- Were the elements of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 proven beyond reasonable doubt such that petitioner Ricky Dinamling is criminally liable?
- Did petitioner’s defenses of denial and alibi, and Dr. Diaz’s testimony casting doubt on causation of the abortion, merit acquittal or reversal?
- Was AAA’s pregnancy proved as an aggravating circumstance under Section 6(f) of RA 9262, and were the penalties correctly imposed and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)