Case Digest (G.R. No. 200868)
Facts:
Filemon Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-13719, March 31, 1965, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regala, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner Filemon Perez was prosecuted for slight physical injuries after an incident on January 15, 1949, in which complainant Isidro Macasero alleged that Perez struck him with a wooden rod, causing lacerations, contusions and temporary incapacity to earn his livelihood. A complaint for slight physical injuries was filed in the Municipal Court of Cebu City, which found Perez guilty and sentenced him to ten days of arresto menor.
Perez appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, which, finding treachery as an aggravating circumstance, increased the penalty to twenty-one days of arresto menor, ordered payment of P25.00 as actual (compensatory) damages and P500.00 for moral and exemplary damages, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, plus costs. Perez further appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CFI in all respects except that it reduced the award for moral and exemplary damages to P100.00.
Still dissatisfied, Perez brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision. The lower courts' factual findings turned principally on witness credibility; both courts credited the prosecution's version. The prosecution's evidence described a sudden early-morning attack by Perez on Macasero that required medical treatment; the defense contended that Macasero had forcibly entered Perez's house and assaulted Perez's wife, provoking Perez to act in defense. The Court of Appeals emphasized the parties' personal circumstances and relationships in resolving credibility in favor of the complainant. The Supreme Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction and factual finding of liability by the lower courts properly supported by the evidence?
- Was the aggravating circumstance of treachery present in the commission of the offense?
- Were the awards for moral and exemplary damages proper given the circum...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)