Case Digest (G.R. No. 226745)
Facts:
Petitioner Elpedio Ruego was charged in an October 27, 2005 Information with violating Article 263(3) of the Revised Penal Code for punching Anthony M. Calubiran, causing a fractured upper right central incisor alleged to have produced permanent deformity. The Municipal Trial Court convicted Ruego of serious physical injuries (December 15, 2011), the Regional Trial Court affirmed (August 17, 2012), and the Court of Appeals affirmed (January 26, 2016); Ruego filed a petition for review under Rule 45, decided by the Supreme Court on May 3, 2021.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioner’s conviction for serious physical injuries under Article 263(3) for causing a fractured front tooth?
- Does the *equipoise* rule or a claim of mutual combat justify acquittal or reduction of liability here?
Ruling:
The Court modified the judgment of the Court of Appeals and found petitioner guilty of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to arresto menor and ordering payment of respondent’s dental costs, subject to the trial court’s application of Republic Act No. 11362 and A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC for possible community service. The Court also held that the equipoise rule did not apply because the evidence showed petitioner instigated the altercation and there was no proof of unlawful aggression by the victim.
Ratio:
The Court reexamined People v. Balubar and held that loss or fracture of a tooth is not per se a deformity within Article 263(3); the statute contemplates a permanent alteration of physical appearance not remediable by medical means, and courts must assess the factual circumstances and visible deformity at trial. Here the record showed no visible deformity at trial because the fractured tooth had been repaired by modern dental means, and the medico-legal opinion alone did not establish the kind of permanent, unremediable disfigurement required for serious physical injuries; additionally, petitioner’s own admissions and witnesses established he instigated the fight, rendering the equipoise principle inapplicable.
Doctrine:
- In criminal appeals under Rule 45, this Court may review questions of fact when necessary to protect the accused’s constitutional presumption of innocence.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)